L si .--, ’-./if « s Sil :■ h-T y ■ - V ’ ! ' V - ' ' ' *.• " :: .v, • :■;{ .■I i: j t :: ‘ i '■ ■ ■ * ^ !$ a. ''S^r« ;;l~VkSr agfegSS [JCEfcSjr > «^/,«> >£*■>? jjKTr r 'S’>V‘'ai.V j v'iSi-v •‘ >v •• 'A , : .'A r,i: VOL. II, NO. 13 MAY 1, 1923 UNIVERSITY EXTENSION DIVISION University of North Carolina Extension Bulletin AGRICULTURAL GRAPHICS: NORTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES 1866-1922 By H. R. SMEDES THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS CHAPEL HILL, N. C. Entered as Second-Class Matter !wt&: aVvA-A ' '. t -.'.uV : tV : v y 'Tv-?\ :z r ._- & St- A', i& o l-» - A University of North Carolina Extension Bulletin AGRICULTURAL GRAPHICS: NORTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES 1866-1922 By HENRIETTA R. SMEDES LIBRARIAN AND LABORATORY ASSISTANT DEPARTMENT RURAL SOCIAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS CHAPEL HILL, N. C. The well-being of a people is like a tree; agriculture is its root, manufacture and commerce are its branches and its life; if the root is injured the leaves fall, the branches break away, and the tree dies.—Chinese Philosopher. Agriculture is not only an occupation which some individuals follow for profit, it is a great national interest determining in a dominant way the fortunes of the nation and the oppor¬ tunities and the character of the populations.—Dr. James W. Robertson. CONTENTS / PAGE Prefatory Explanation. 5-7 Aggregate Crop Values, North Carolina and United States, Yearly and Trend, 1909-1922. 7-10 Aggregate Crop Values, North Carolina and United States, Five- Year Average 1917-1921. 10 Proportion,of Important United States Crops Produced in the Five Leading States and in North Carolina, Five-Year Average 1917-1921 ... 11-12 Acreage, Yield Per Acre, Total Production, Farm Price Per Unit December 1, Total Value and Value Per Acre of Important Crops, North Carolina and United States, 1866-1922. 12-38 Corn . 12-17 Wheat . 17-20 Oats . 20-23 Potatoes . 23-28 Hay . 29-33 Cotton . 32-34 Tobacco . 34-38 Other Crops . 38 Livestock: Number, Farm Price Per Head January 1, and Total Value for Farm Animals, North Carolina and United States, 1867-1923 . 38-47 Horses and Mules . 39-44 Milch Cows and Other Cattle . 42-44 Sheep and Swine . 44-47 Food Production as Compared With Population. 47-50 General Considerations . 50-51 2 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill https://archive.org/details/agriculturalgrap03smed AGRICULTURAL GRAPHICS: NORTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES 1866-1922 This bulletin presents the results of several years of pains¬ taking and minute research in government crop and live stock statistics. The figures upon which the charts and graphs are based are all official figures—returns of the federal Bureau of the Census for census years and estimates of the United States Department of Agriculture for intervening years. Throughout the bulletin census figures are given in italics. The Department of Agriculture’s estimates are based primarily on census figures carried forward from year to year through percentage estimates made on the basis of returns from a host of crop reporters and field agents, and every possible side-light on the problems considered is utilized by the Department in its estimates. However there is an unavoidable tendency towards cumulative error in estimates of acreage as the distance from the actual census year increases, and consequently the estimates for the later years in the inter-census periods are apt to show considerable variation from the actual census figures when these become available. The Department of Agriculture has in some instances revised its original estimates for such years, so as to conform more nearly to ascertained fact; and in all cases where revisions have been made the latest estimates are here used. In census years the Department of Agriculture’s estimates, made prior to the taking of the census, are shown in addition to the census figures, so as to exhibit the extent of the variation between the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and the actual census figures. The department officials have been most kind in supplying, upon request, copies of hitherto unpublished data from office records, and the writer, who was for many years em¬ ployed in close association with statistical experts of the present Bureau of Agricultural Economics, has had the training req¬ uisite for the handling of such material. 6 Agricultural Graphics The fifty-seven-year period covered, 1866 to 1922, is that for which an unbroken series of comparable statistics can be supplied. The findings pointed out in this bulletin are such as are plainlv revealed by even a superficial examination of the statistics presented. These statistics will repay further close study. They can be used in many ways in working towards solving our various state agricultural and industrial problems. The points covered are: I. Crops 1. Aggregate value of crops: North Carolina and the United States, 1909-1922. Table I. Chart 1. Percent of United States aggregate crop values produced in North Carolina, 1909-1922. Chart 2. Increase in aggregate crop values over 1909, North Carolina and the United States, 1909-1922. 2. Aggregate crop values, five-year average, 1917-1921: Chart 3. Proportion of aggregate United States crop val¬ ues produced in the five leading states and in North Carolina. Chart 4. Proportion of aggregate United States crop values represented by important crops. Chart 5. Proportion of aggregate North Carolina crop values represented by the same crops. 3. Proportion of important crops produced in the five lead¬ ing states and in North Carolina, five-year average 1917-21. Charts 6 to 13—corn, wheat, oats, potatoes, sweet potatoes, hay, cotton, and tobacco. 4. Acreage, yield per acre, total production, farm price per unit December 1, total value, and value per acre of important crops, North Carolina and the United States, 1866-1922. Tables II to IX. Corn: Trends in yield per acre, farm price per bushel, and value per acre. Table II and charts 14 to 16. Wheat: Trends in yield per acre, farm price per bushel, and value per acre. Table III and charts 17 to 19. Oats: Trends in yield per acre, farm price per bushel, and value per acre. Table IV and charts 20 to 22. Irish potatoes: Trends in yield per acre, farm price per bushel, and value per acre. Table V and charts 23 to 25. Agricultural Graphics 7 Sweet potatoes: Trends in yield per acre, farm price per bushel, and value per acre. Table VI and charts 26 to 28. Hay, tame: Trends in yield per acre, farm price per ton, and value per acre. Table VII and charts 29 to 31. Cotton: Trends in yield per acre, farm price per pound, and value per acre. Table VIII and charts 32 to 34. Tobacco: Trends in yield per acre, farm price per pound, and value per acre. T able IX and charts 35 to 37. 5. Other crops. II. Livestock 1. Number, farm price per head January 1, and total value for farm animals, North Carolina and the United States, 1867- 1923. Tables X to XII. Horses and Mules: Trends in farm price per head. Table X and charts 38 and 39. Milk Cows and Other Cattle: Trends in farm price per head. Table XI and charts 40 and 41. Sheep and Swine: Trends in farm price per head. Table XII and charts 42 and 43. III. Food Production 1. Food production as compared with population. Tables XIII and XIV and charts 44 and 45. 2. General considerations. L Crops 1. Aggregate value of crops: North Carolina and the United States, 1909-1922. The figures presented in table 1 and charts 1 and 2 are more suggestive than authoritative. The Department of Agriculture’s hypothetical estimates of aggregate crop values are based on the assumption that the several crops whose production the department estimates from year to year (at present some twenty-two in number) represent each year the same proportion of total crop values that they rep¬ resented in the previous census year. This is only roughly true, and any unusual or disproportionate increase or decrease in the value of some particular crop distorts the reliability of the esti- 8 Agricultural Graphics TABLE I—AGGREGATE VALUE OF CROPS: N. C. AND U. S., 1909-1922 Year NORTH CAROLINA Hypothetical value of all crops UNITED STATES Hypothetical value of all crops Rank Per cent U. S. Total Produced in State State Total 1000 Dolls. Per cent of 1909 Value U. S. Total 1000 Dolls. Per cent of 1909 Value 1909 _ 19 2.5 131,072 100.0 5,231,851 100.0 1810 3.0 169,496 129.3 5,727,398 109.5 1911_ 2.9 170,296 129.9 5,834,685 111.5 1919 3.1 184,139 140.5 5^964,011 114.0 1913 3.4 208,615 159.2 6',178,691 118.1 1914_ 16 2.8 173.497 132.4 6,262,835 119.7 1915_ 16 2.9 197,185 150.4 6,768,598 129.4 1916_ 11 3.0 272,076 207.6 • 8,985,870 171.8 1917_ 11 3.2 434,093 331.2 13,506,669 256.3 1918. „ 5 4.0 565,608 431.5 14,094,384 269.3 1919 _ 12 3.4 503,229 383.9 lit,755,365 282.0 1920__ 11 3.5 353,169 269.4 10,197,092 194.9 1921_ 6 3.9 252,376 192.5 6,410,229 122.5 1922_ 5 4.0 342,637 261.4 8,501,395 162.5 mated aggregate. However, such distortions tend to neutralize one another in considering averages for a series of years, and therefore the figures exhibited may be used as a rough measuring rod in determining our progress in the production of crop values. It will be noted (chart 1) that whereas in 1909 North Caro¬ lina’s crops represented only 2.5 percent of the total United States crop values, in 1922 they had risen to 4.0 percent of the total. Furthermore, the upward trend, as shown by using a series of moving averages for five-year periods, has been absolutely unmistakable and perfectly regular, with marked acceleration in the later years. That we are indeed a favored people is shown strikingly in chart 2. Here the percent of increase from year to year in ag¬ gregate crop values in North Carolina over our 1909 crop values is shown in comparison with the similar percent of increase in the United States. The 1909 figures for the state and for the United States are taken as a starting point, and the percent of gain in North Carolina is unfailingly much above the per¬ cent of gain in the United States. Had the United State* as a Percent _ Percent Agricultural Graphics 9 «n o c~> 5.0 4.5 40 3.5 30 Z5 2.0 1.5 1.0 o o — Si iO o O) cn ^ ^ — — cr> co o cr> o — C\i O) » \ \ — * t / / / / .**'*'* ** _ N.C.j N.C. _ /ear aver _ y.pe age 1 rcerr "or 5 _ v & year _ US. c '3 en _ :rop \ ding L_J ''Glue: iny£ _ jars _ indict _ ated L_ 5.0 45 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 CHART 1.—PER CENT OP TOTAL UNITED STATES CROP VALUES PRODUCED IN NORTH CAROLINA CHART 2.—INCREASE IN AGGREGATE CROP VALUES OVER 1909 VALUES: N. C. AND THE U. S., 1909-1922 Percent Percent 10 Agricultural Graphics whole gained as much as North Carolina has in crop values since 1909, the aggregate for the United States in 1922 would have been over thirteen and a half billion dollars, instead of eight and a half billions. 2. Aggregate crop values, five-year average 1917-21. Chart 3 shows our standing and that of the leading five states in crop values for the five-year period 1917-21. We have not yet maintained our values for a period long enough to admit us to the ranks of the leading five states in an average covering five years; but the 1922 figures show that we were within the fold of the elect last year, and it seem6 likely that we may retain the rank we have reached in recent years. All 1922 figures are subject to revision in December, 1923, therefore they have not been used in the averages here given. Charts 4 and 5 show an interesting contrast between the crops that have made the fortune of the United States as a whole and those that have raised North Carolina into prominence. The eight crops considered (corn, wheat, oats, potatoes, sweet pota¬ toes, hay, cotton and tobacco) for the five-year period 1917-21 Chart 3 Five Leading States 6.3 5.7 5.5 3.8 38*581 42 5 TATES 71.3 7o % % t 7 c % Ly Tex III Ia 0 . Cal N.C -Aggregate Crop Values CHypothetical), Five-Year Average 1917-192! US. = S 11.792,748,000 = 100.0 PerCent. Chart 4 US 100 7. PerCent of Aggregate Crop Values (Hypothetical) for 1917-1921 Represented by Crops Specified. U.S ; $ 11,792,748, 000 - 100 0 PerCent Sweet Potatoes 0 9 7. Corn Hay 12 37 . WHEXTim Cotton Oats Pot- T. bxc Other Crops 24 37 . 1167. 6 . 0 % ah>c 4,?1 CO ail Chart 5 *-0ats 0 8% N.C. Tobacco 25 7 7o Cotton 22.8 Corn i9.0% K V- -«r cn £ £ r Other Crops ■n £ EO 20. 4% Potatoes 1 . 57 c-’’ PerCent of NC Aggregate Crop Values (Hypothetical) tor I9l7~l92i Represented by Crops Specified. NC = $ 421,695.000 = 100 0 Per Cent Agricultural Graphics 11 CHARTS 6 TO 13.—PROPORTION OF IMPORTANT CROPS PRODUCED IN THE FIVE LEADING STATES AND IN NORTH CAROLINA Iowa 142 % Ills. Il.57« N £3 7® Mo. 6.41 Ikq 621 42 5tates 52.8 7« Corn U.S Five-Year Average. Production 1917-1921 = 2.931.271.000 Bushels or IDO 0% ■nc. c.7% _ Kama 13 9% N.D.9ZJ Ills. Nes CklJ 6 - Z % 5 - V . 56j 42 States 507% Wheat U.5. Five-Year Average Production 1917-1321= 834,801,000 Bushels or 100.0% Iowa 15.8% Ills. 12.5% Mikn 86Z W1S.6.6Z Heb57j 42 States 50.5% Oats U.S. Five-Year Average Production 1317-1921 - 1,37 7,303,000 Bushels or 100 0% H C iZ % _ NY 9.5% Me-' 42 States 58.07° Potatoes U.S. Five-Year Average Production 1317-1921- 308,358,ooo Bushels or 100 0% 5vyeet Potatoes, U 5. FTve-Year Average Production 1917-1921 = S4,230,000 Bushels^ 1000% _ 09% _ NY7l% Cal Idwa Ohio! 42 States 70.7% 54% 5-H s 4_ Hay (Tame). U5 Five-Year Average Production |917~I92I- 83,312.000 Tons - 1000% Texas 275% 6a. 14 0% 5.C. 118% ArkT.Q Miss. 8.5 m Other States 224% Cotton, U.5i Five-Year Average Production I917~l92l = 11,232,000 Bales=100.0% Ya 101% Tenh Ohio 6.3%, 5 - 3 % Other States 224% Tobacco, U.5. Five-Year Average Production 1917-1921= 1.361.149,000 Pounds=I00.0% 3 12 Agricultural Graphics represented in the United States, considered as a whole, 75.7 percent of the aggregate crop values, and in North Carolina 79.6 percent of such aggregate values. But in the United States at large the food and feed crops furnished by far the greater 'proportion of the values, whereas in North Carolina the only food crop that constitutes any considerable percentage of the total state crop values is corn—19 percent, while tobacco and cotton together represent 48.5 percent of the aggregate. 3. This point is further emphasized in charts 6 to 13, which show the proportion of important crops produced in the lead¬ ing states and in North Carolina, on the basis of their five-year averages 1917-21. When the different crops are distributed ac¬ cording to the states which furnished the largest percentages, it is seen at a glance that sweet potatoes are the only food crop of which we furnish any considerable proportion in the United States total production. Our corn crop, which accounts for 19 percent of our own aggregate crop values, represents only 1.9 percent of the total corn crop of the country, whereas we pro¬ duce 10.4 percent of the total sweet potato crop and nearly a quarter of the tobacco crop of the United States. Sweet potatoes and tobacco are the two crops in whose production we stand among the leading five states on a five-year average, 1917-21. Figures for 1922 and 1921 show us among the first five states in cotton as well, but how long we can maintain this position now that the boll weevil has gotten us into his clutches remains to be seen. 4. Tables II to IX and charts 14 to 37 present details of the crops of corn, wheat, oats, potatoes, sweet potatoes, hay, cot¬ ton, and tobacco in North Carolina and the United States from 1866 to 1922. These tables and charts constitute a statistical history of these particular crops for the entire period for which consecutive data are available. The estimates of acreage and production shown may not in particular years represent closely actual facts, but they are fairly comparable and they do repre¬ sent the results of the Government’s best effort to ascertain these facts. Where federal department officials have found it possible at a later date to amend the estimates originally made, revisions have been substituted for the original figures, so that the statistics given represent the best available information in Agricultural Graphics 13 these matters. The federal government has had in mind for some time further revision of some of the earlier estimates of acreage (and of production, as a consequence), but so far this work has not been consummated. A committee of statistical experts, composed of Carroll W. Doten of the Boston Institute of Technology, Prof. Warren M. Persons of Harvard, W. I. King of the Bureau of Business Research of New York, and Dr. G. F. Warren, of Cornell University, has examined very re¬ cently the statistical work of the U. S. Department of Agricul¬ ture and recommended the revision and publication for all states of such historical records of acreage, production, and livestock as we are giving here for North Carolina. As a matter of fact, however, it is not always possible for the Government to carry out promptly recommendations of this kind, though eventually they may be acted upon. This fact has been borne in mind in the preparation of the present bulletin, and accordingly only such charts and graphs have been presented as will be affected very little, if at all, by any future revisions of acreage, production, or livestock figures. Estimates of yield per acre, of farm price per unit, and the resultant figure—value per acre, will remain practically unchanged in spite of revisions of individual acreage figures in some years. The failings inherent in estimates of acreage and production have furnished an additional reason for basing our graphs on per-acre and per-unit figures rather than on totals. The per-acre and per-unit figures are not subject to the cumulative error which is apt to be present in the estimates of acreage and pro¬ duction; and, furthermore, they are rendered more reliable by the unerring nature of the law of averages. That is to say, they are based on a very large number of estimates, similarly made from year to year and properly distributed so as to con¬ stitute them reliable samples. For this reason, considerable re¬ liance may be placed upon them. Examining the charts presented, it may be noted that in every crop shown there is a marked trend towards increased yield per acre in the United States; and this is true also in North Carolina for all crops with the exception of hay and Irish pota¬ toes. Both these crops are at present on the upward path in TABLE II—CORN Year NORTH CAROLINA UNITED STATES Acr’ge Harv’t’d 1000 Acres Av. Yield per Acre—Bus. Production 1000 Bus. Av. Farm Price bu. Dec. 1—Cts. Farm V alue December 1 1000 Dolls. v ai. Acre .oasis Dec. 1 Farm Price—Dolls. Acr’ge Harv’t’d 1000 Acres Av. Yield per Acre—Bus. Production 1000 Bus. Av. Farm Price bu. Dec. 1—Cts. Farm Val.Dec.l 1000 Dolls. Val. Acre Basis Dec. 1 Farm Price—Dolls. 1866_ 1,805 12.0 21,657 78 16,867 9.36 34,307 25.3 867,946 47.4 411,451 11.99 1867— 1,549 11.6 17,974 74 13,390 8.58 32,520 23.6 768,320 57.0 437,770 13.46 1868— 1,634 14.3 23,366 58 13,561 8.29 34,887 26.0 906,527 46.8 424,057 12.16 1869— 1,176 14.8 17,400 79 13,788 11.69 37,103 23.6 874,320 59.8 522,551 14.08 1869 .. 18,454 7 60,945 1S70_ 1,541 14.6 22,500 70 15,754 10.22 38,647 2S.3 1,094,255 49.4 540,520 13.99 1871— 1,479 14.0 20,700 64 13,217 8.96 34,091 29.1 991,898 43.4 430,356 12.62 1872_.. 1,501 16.0 24,012 55 13,186 8.80 35,527 30.8 1,092,719 35.3 385,736 10.86 1873-- 1,488 14.2 21,130 59 12,452 8.38 39,197 23.8 932,274 44.2 411,961 10.51 1874_ 1,353 16.4 22,186 65 14,404 10.66 41,037 20.7 850,148 58.4 496,271 12.09 1875_ 1,485 15.0 22,275 52 11,652 7.80 44,841 29.5 1,321,069 36.7 484,675 10.81 1876_ 1,575 14.6 23,000 49 11,384 7.15 49,033 26.2 1,283,828 34.0 436,109 8.89 1877_ 1,629 14.0 22,800 51 11,533 7.14 50,369 26.7 1,342,558 34.8 467,635 9.28 1878— 1,662 13.6 22,603 45 10,151 6.12 51,585 26.9 1,388,219 31.7 440,281 8.54 1879_ 2,305 15.0 34,575 58 20,054 8.70 62,369 29.2 1,823,163 37.1 676,251 10.84 1879— 2,305 12.2 28,020 62 369 28.1 1,754,592 1S80_ 2,253 16.4 36,954 52 19,216 8.53 62,31S 27.6 1,717,435 39.6 679,714 10.91 1881 — 2,30S 11.7 26,977 79 21,312 9.24 64,262 18.0 1,194,916 63.6 759,482 11.82 1882— 2,446 14.0 34.261 53 18,158 7.42 65,660 24.6 1,617,025 48.5 783,867 11.94 1883_ 2,495 11.5 28,692 65 18,650 7.48 68,302 22.7 1,551,067 42.4 658,051 9.63 1884_ 2,520 12.5 31,499 60 18,899 7.50 69,684 25.8 1,795,528 35.7 640,736 9.19 1885— 2,545 9.9 25,199 55 13,859 5.44 73,130 26.5 1,936,176 32.8 635,675 8.69 1886_ 2,596 10.5 27,215 57 15,513 5.9S 75,694 22.0 1,665,441 36.6 610,311 8.06 1887— 2,674 13.4 35,830 59 21,140 7.91 72,393 20.1 1,456,161 44.4 646,107 8.93 1888— 2,674 10.6 28,343 58 16,439 6.15 75,673 26.3 1,987,790 34.1 677,562 8.95 1889_ 2,361 12.0 28,332 53 15,016 6.36 72,088 27.7 1,998,648 27.4 546,984 7.59 1889 2,361 10.9 25,784 72,088 29.4 2,122,328 1890— 2,320 13.3 30,856 55 16,971 7.32 70,390 20.7 1,460,406 50.0 729,647 10.37 1891_ 2,280 14.1 32,148 58 18,646 8.18 74,496 27.6 2,055,823 39.7 816,917 10.97 1892_ 2,200 10.2 22,440 54 12,118 5.51 72,610 23.6 1,713,688 38.8 664,390' 9.15 1893_ 2,200 12.3 27,060 50 13.530 6.15 74,434 22.9 1,707,572 35.9 612,998 8.24 1894_ 2,300 13.4 30,820 47 14,485 6.30 69,396 19.3 1,339,680 45.1 604,523 8.71 1895_ 2,450 14.5 35,525 38 13,500 5.51 85,567 27.0 2,310,952 25.0 578,408 6.76 1896_ 2,470 12.0 29,640 37 10,967 4.44 86,560 28.9 2,503,484 21.3 532,884 6.16 1897_ 2,450 13.0 31,850 43 13,696 5.59 88,127 24.3 2,144,553 26.0 558,309 6.34 1898— 2,5S0 14.0 36,120 43 15,532 6.02 88,304 25.6 2,261,119 28.4 642,747 7.28 1899_ 2,720 13.0 35,360 47 16,619 6.11 94.914 25.9 2,454,626 29.9 734,917 7.74 1899 ... 2,720 12.8 34,819 94,914 28.1 2,666,324 1900_ 2,675 12.0 32,100 57 18,297 6.84 95,042 26.4 2,505,148 35.1 878,243 9.24 1901_ 2,575 12.0 30,900 73 22,557 8.76 94,636 17.0 1,607,288 60.0 964,543 10.19 1902— 2,700 13.9 37,530 60 22,518 8.34 95,517 27.4 2,620,699 40.0 1,048,735 10.98 1903_ 2,570 14.7 37,779 61 23,045 8.97 90,661 25.8 2,339,417 42.1 984,173 10.86 1904.— 2,550 15.2 38,760 62 24,031 9.42 93,340 27.0 2,520,682 43.7 1,101,430 11.80 1905_ 2,500 13.9 34,750 64 22,240 8.90 93,573 29.3 2,744,329 40.7 1,116,817 11.94 1906_ 2,500 15,3 38,250 68 26,010 10.40 93,643 30.9 2,895,822 39.2 1,135,969 12.13 1907— 2,500 16.5 41,250 74 30,525 12.21 94,971 26.5 2,512,065 50.9 1,277,607 13.45 1908_ 2,450 18.0 44,100 79 34,839 14.22 95,603 26.6 2,544,957 60.0 1,527,679 15.98 1909... 2,459 16.8 41,311 85 35,114 14.28 98,383 26.1 2,572,336 58.6 1,507,185 15.32 1909— 2,459 13.8 34,064 98,383 25.9 2,552,190 1910_ 2,650 18.6 49,290 76 37,460 14.14 1.04,035 27.7 2,886,260 48.0 1,384,817 13.31 1911... 2,700 18.4 49,680 82 40,738 15.09 105,825 23.9 2,531,488 61.8 1,565,258 14.79 1912— 2,808 18.2 51,106 83 42,418 15.11 L07,083 29.2 3,124,746 48.7 1,520,454 14.20 1913_ 2,835 19.5 55,282 88 48,648 17.16 105,820 23.1 2,446,988 69.1 1,692,092 15.99 1914— 2,835 20.3 57,550 86 49,493 17.46 L03,435 25.8 2,672,804 64.4 1,722,070 16.65 1915_ 2,900 21.0 60,900 77 46,893 16.17 106,197 28.2 2,994,793 57.5 1,722,680 16.22 1916_ 2,600- 18.5 48,100 110 52,910 20.35 L05.296 24.4 2,566,927 88.9 2,280,729 21.66 1917— 2,920 20.0 58,400 170 90,280 34.00 116,730 26.3 3,065,233 127.9 3,920,228 33.58 1918_ 3,030 21.0 63,630 177 112,625 37.17 104,467 24.0 2,502,665 136.5 3,416,240 32.70 1919*_ 2,531 19.0 48,0S9 185 88,965 35.15 97,170 28.9 2,811,302 134.5 3,780,597 38.91 1919 ... 2,311 17.7 40,998 87,772 26.7 2,345,833 1920_ 2,428 22.5 54,630 113 61,732 25.42 1.01,699 31.5 3,208,584 67.0 2,150,332 21.14 1921_ 2,552 19.3 49,254 78 38,418 15.05 103,740 29.6 3,068,569 42.3 1,297,213 12.50 1922**. 2,526 20.0 50,520 89 44,963 17.80 102,428 28.2 2,890,712 65.7 1,900,287 18.55 * Revisions based on 1919 census. ** Subject to revision December, 1923. Agricultural Graphics 15 ^ aj o n 4 o co 5r-\ t— t— fr— t'- 5 ® ® CD tfl CO CO ^ 3? o o cs» «± <£> _ e> QOaoCQ<35 oj^<^Ocooes»^vO 185 165 Corn Farm price Dec 1, yearly. N.C. • •■ - 10-year average ending fn years indicated!# . - - -. - US i i i - J r < / i i i 1 / i » / A i \ ,\ ,1 / A / \ ' \ A" / \ y ■A / 7 \ \ \ \ 1 \ 1 1 fr 1 \ Li t M 1 \ / r# / / \ 1 1 \ V / / / / \ \ \ \ \ A / -V-S I 1 / a y \ / ^ 1 / V* \ id&f / / /*■" ..— - p *"'v C/5 ?46/ ... V V -V.- X" / 185 1&5 145 125 105 85 65 45 25 145 125 -J Ui X Q ^105 ui a. Vi h- Z Ui c_> 65 65 45 -M CHART 15.—CORN: FARM PRICE, N. C. AND U. S. CENTS PE.fi BuSHEL Bu3mEL3 PER ACRE CHART 16.—CORN: VALUE PER ACRE, N. C. AND 16 Agricultural Graphics d CQ Dollars per Acre Dollars per Acre Agricultural Graphics 17 yield per acre in North Carolina, but they have not yet reached their earlier level. Looking at the charts in detail, we may observe a number of interesting points. Corn. The enormous difference between our yield per acre of corn and the yield in the United States as a whole is striking¬ ly shown in chart 14. But it is also shown that we have made a much greater gain in yield per acre than the country as a whole has made, and the gulf fixed between our average yield and the United States average seems to be steadily decreasing. The United States average yield per acre for the ten-year period 1913-22 was 27.00 bushels, as compared with 26.07 bushels for the decade 1886-75—a gain of 3.6 percent; whereas in North Carolina the yield in the later period was 20.11 bushels per acre and in the earier period 14.29 bushels—a gain of 40.7 percent. As a consequence of the smallness of our yield, our farm price per bushel has been consistently higher than the United States average (chart 15) ; and though our yield has been in¬ creasing, our farm price per bushel has also maintained an up¬ ward trend. The result is that our value per acre, after being for a long period below the United States average, has in recent years risen above the United States average value per acre. This is shown in chart 16. This achievement is the result of our increased yield per acre rather than of our increased price per bushel. There is very litttle difference in the percentage of in¬ crease in price per bushel of corn in North Carolina and the United States, as is shown by the fact that the percentage gain in price per bushel, comparing the ten-year average for 1913-22 with the ten-year average f or 1866-75, was 79.4 in North Carolina and 78.5 in the United States. But at the same time, because of our increased yield, comparing the two decades 1913-22 and 1866-75, the North Carolina increase in value per acre is shown to be 154.2 percent, while the United States gain was only 8.95 percent. Wheat. Our wheat crop comprises only a very small pro¬ portion—seven-tenths of one percent—of the total United States wheat crop. However, as in the corn crop—though not to so great an extent—we seem to be gaining on the United States in the percentage increase in yield per acre (chart 17). Compar¬ ing the per-acre yields in the two decades 1913-22 and 1866-75 TABLE III—WHEAT Year NORTH CAROLINA UNITED STATES Acr’ge Harv’t’d 1000 Acres Av. Yield per Acre—Bus. Production 1000 Bus. Av. Farm Price bu. Dec. 1—Cts. Farm Val.Dec.l 1000 Dolls. Val. Acre Basis Dec. 1 Farm Price—Dolls. Acr’ge Harv’t’d 1000 Acres Av. Yield per Acre—Bus. Production 1000 Bus. Av. Farm Price bu. Dec. 1—Cts. Farm Val.Dec.l 1000 Dolls. Val. Acre Basis Dec. 1 Farm Price—Dolls. 1866_ 491 5.8 2,846 189 5,384 10.96 15,424 9.9 152,000 152.7 232,110 15.05 1867.-- 495 6.9 3,415 151 5,162 10.42 18,322 11.6 212,441 145.2 308,387 16.83 1868— 504 5.9 2,971 149 4,421 8.79 18,460 12.1 224,037 108.5 243,033 13.17 1869— 461 8.4 3,870 121 4,692 10.16 19,181 13.6 260,147 76.5 199,025 10.38 1869 2,860 287,746 1870... 490 8.6 4,218 109 4,581 9.37 18,993 12.4 235,S85 94.4 222,767 11.73 1871— 422 6.0 2,530 128 3,231 7.68 19,944 11.6 230,722 114.5 264,076 13.24 1872_ 401 8.2 3,289 136 4,457 11.15 20,S58 12.0 249,997 111.4 278,522 13.35 1873_ 451 6.2 2,795 143 3,989 8.87 22,172 12.7 281,255 106.9 300,670 13.56 1874_ 360 8.0 2,878 124 3,581 9.92 24,967 12.3 308,103 86.3 265,881 10.65 1875— 407 7.5 3,050 108 3,297 S.10 26,382 11.1 292,136 89.5 261,397 9.91 1876_ 411 7.3 3,000 110 3,300 8.03 27,627 10.5 289,356 97.0 280,743 10.16 1877— 470 8.3 3,900 106 4,135 8.80 26,278 13.9 364,194 105.7 385,089 14.65 1878_ 465 6.5 3,024 100 3,018 6.50 32,109 13.1 420,122 77.6 325,814 10.15 1879— 647 7.0 4,529 128 5,797 8.96 35,430 14.1 496,435 110.6 549,219 15.50 7879— 6k 1 5.3 3,39 7 35,430 13.0 459,483 1880._ 761 6.4 4,871 115 5,602 7.36 37,987 13.1 498,550! 95.1 474,202 12.48 1881— 662 6.9 4,579 149 6,823 10.28 37,709 10.2 383,280 119.2 456,880 12.12 1882_ 710 7.7 5,495 106 5,824 8.16 37,067 13.6 504,185 88.4 445,602 12.02 1883_ 717 5.9 4,231 117 4,950 6.90 36,456 11.6 421,086 91.1 383,649 10.52 1884_ 767 6.1 4,650 89 4,138 5.43 39,476 13.0 512,765 64.5 330,862 8.38 1885— 683 4.1 2,790 100 2,790 4.10 34,189 10.4 357,112 77.1 275,320 8.05 1886— 697 4.6 3,209 100 3,209 4.60 36,806 12.4 457,218 68.7 314,226 8.54 1887_ 717 7.1 5,094 88 4,483 6.25 37,642 12.1 456,329 68.1 310,613 8.25 1888— 710 5.4 3,835 105 4,027 5.67 37,336 11.1 415,868 92.6 385,248 10.32 1889_ 666 6.2 4,129 90 3,716 5.58 33,580 12.9 434,383 69.5 301,869 8.99 1889 _ 666 6.4 4,292 33,580 13.9 468,374 1890_ 700 4.4 3,080 100 3,080 4.40 34,048 11.1 378,097 83.3 315,112 9.25 1891_ 720 6.8 4,896 102 4,994 6.94 37,826 15.5 584,504 83.4 487,463 12.89 1892— 740 7.1 5,254 89 4,676 6.32 39,552 13.3 527,986 62.2 328,329 8.30 1893— 760 8.2 6,232 72 4,487 5.90 37,934 11.3 427,553 53.5 228,599 6.03 1894_ 760 5.0 3,800 65 2,470 3.25 39,425 13.1 516,485 48.9 252,709 6.41 1895_ 7S0 6.9 5,382 72 3,875 4.97 40,848 13.9 569,456 50.3 286,539 7.01 1896_ 770 7.3 5,621 83 4,665 6.06 43,916 12.4 544,193 71.7 390,346 8.89 1897_ 700 8.0 5,600 94 5,264 7.52 46,046 13.3 610,254 80.9 493,683 10.72 1898_ 760 9.2 6,992 78 5,454 7.18 51,007 15.1 772,163 58.2 449,022 8.80 1899_ 747 6.7 5,005 82 4,104 5.49 52,589 12.1 636,051 58.6 372,982 7.09 1899 _ 747 5.8 4,342 52,589 12.5 658,534 1900_ 830 9.6 7,968 82 6,534 7.87 51,387 11.7 602,708 62.0 373,578 7.27 1901_ 820 8.7 7,134 82 5.850 7.13 52,473 15.0 789,538 62.6 494,096 9.42 1902___ 640 5.3 3,392 92 3,121 4.88 49,649 14.6 724,528 63.0 456,530 9.20 1903_ 680 5.1 3,468 97 3,364 4.95 51,632 12.9 664,543 69.5 461,605 8.94 1904— 600 8.6 5,160 119 6,140 10.23 47,S25 12.5 596,375 92.4 551,128 11.52 1905_ 600 6.7 4,020 102 4,100 6.83 49,389 14.7 726,3S4 74.6 542,119 10.98 1906_ 560 9.1 5,096 93 4,739 8.46 47,800 15.8 757,195 66.2 501,355 10.49 1907— 520 9.5 4,940 107 5,286 10.16 45,113 14.1 637,981 86.5 552,074 12.24 1908— 500 10.0 5,000 107 5,350 10.70 45,970 14.0 644,656 92.2 594,092 12.92 1909_ 502 9.5 4,769 127 6,057 12.06 44,262 15.8 700,434 98.4 689,108 15.57 1909 _ 502 7.6 3,827 44,262 15.4 683,379 1910_ 598 11.4 6,817 110 7,499 12.54 45,6S1 13.9 635,121 88.3 561,051 12.28 1911_ 626 10.6 6,636 102 6,769 10.81 49,543 12.5 621,338 87.4 543,063 10.96 1912_ 598 8.9 5,322 111 5,907 9.88 45,814 15.9 730,267 76.0 555,280 12.12 1913— 605 11.7 7,078 106 7,503 12.40 50,184 15.2 763,380 79.9 610,122 12.16 1914— 611 12.0 7,332 117 8,578 14.04 53,541 16.6 891,017 98.6 878,680 16.41 1915_ 900 10.9 9,810 120 11,772 13.08 60,469 17.0 1,025,801 91.9 942,303 15.58 1916— 870 10.5 9,135 176 16,078 18.48 52,316 12.2 636,318 160.3 1,019,968 19.50 1917_ 860 10.0 8,600 234 20,124 23.40 45,089 14.1 636,655 200.8 1,278,112 28.35 1918_ 900 7.0 6,300 230 14,490 16.10 59,181 15.6 921,438 204.2 1,881,826 31.80 1919*_ 705 7.9 5,570 233 12,978 18.41 75,694 12.8 967,979 214.9 2j0S0,056 27.48 1919 — 621 7.6 4,745 73,099 12.9 945,403 1920_ 680 11.7 7,956 210 16,708 24.57 61,143 13.6 833,027 143.7 1,197,263 19.58 1921_ 600 7.5 4,500 144 6,480 10.80 63,696 12.8 814,905 92.6 754,834 11.85 1922**. 612 9.0 5,508 136 7,491 12.24 61,230 14.0 856,211 100.9 864,139 14.11 Revisions based on 1919 census. ** Subject to revision December, 1923. Agricultural Graphics 19 •0 ?4 S® 1 ' ' 1 1 1 I 1 1 1-1-1-1-3-1- IVHtAT . Yearly yield per acre.N.C. 10-year averages ending inyears indicated, N C —... - 1 - 1 - - ■■ —i—i *• U. 5. ui. — r^- / f' \ i i \ rs ! ; V \ \ ; i V -A- j \ j / - ! T7 i \ / \ j \ ; / \ /• • \ / \ i v> 1 \ A \ ! / if A / \ \ j V ' \ \ A r \ 1 : \ / ! *, \ 1 i i \ 16 15 14 13 12 il «» cA «£> O r»a ra cj Co co CO s § 233 Z\b HOC is: jI70 ■ WHEAT 1 ' i i l l i ' i i ' i i i 1 i i r ' r~ r arm price Dec 1. Yeorly, N C •• - - 10-yecr average ending in years indicated. N.C. \ * " * •• * - - US \ \ /' V < ■A, 4 J / ui n i v • A ; \ \ -K- j \ j \ ~T / / \ j \ \ "An. 4, -v V i" V s *v o: \ r— / s w y \ y.. > V y 'v \ ,A / _ / V \ / ** __ 245 250 215 200 W5 170 155 V D I+0CQ c □ 125 «- n no £ u 95° 60 65 50 : 155 to M0 c UI t 125 •n r no wi U) CHART 18.—WHEAT: FARM PRICE, N. C. AND U. S. 4 20 Agricultural Graphics shows the percentage increase in North Carolina to be 37.3 and in the United States 20.6. Of course in both the United States and North Carolina there has been a decline in yield since the high-pressure days of the war years, but in North Carolina the trend is again upwards, though there would seem to be a con¬ tinuous decline for the country as a whole. In farm price per bushel of wheat (chart 18) we run rather uniformly parallel with the United States except that in the war years the United States price gained on ours and since the war we seem to have had the advantage. Our price is uniformly higher than the United States price, but on the whole the United States has made a slightly greater gain in average price. The percentage gain of the latest decade, 1913-22, over the earliest, 1866-75, was 25.6 in North Carolina and 27.8 in the United States. There is not sufficient difference between price per bushel of wheat in North Carolina and in the United States to over¬ come the difference in yield per acre; consequently our value per acre (chart 19) is uniformly lower than the value per acre in the United States. We gained decidedly on the United States average up to 1916, but have failed to keep pace with the United States since that date. The percentage gain for the decade 1913-22 over the decade 1866-75 was 71.4 in North Carolina and 53.9 in the United States. Oats. Our oats crop is so insignificant as hardly to call for detailed consideration. It represents three-tenths of one percent of the total oats crop of the United States, and contributes eight- tenths of one percent to our state aggregate crop values. As with corn and wheat, the yield per acre (chart 20) in the United States as a whole is greatly larger than in North Carolina, but we show a greater percentage gain than the United States shows when the averages for the earliest and latest decades considered are compared (35.9 percent gain in North Carolina and 11.7 per¬ cent in the United States at large). As with corn, our higher farm price (chart 21) has brought up our value per acre (chart 22) nearer to the United States level. The gain in value per acre in the average for the decade 1913-22 over the average for 1866-75 was 101.2 percent in North Carolina and 49.6 percent in the United States. TABLE IV—OATS Year NORTH CAROLINA UNITED STATES Acr’ge Harv’t’d 1000 Acres Av. Yield per Acre—Bus. Production 1000 Bus. Av. Farm Price bu. Dec. 1—Cts. Farm Val.Dec.l 1000 Dolls. Val. Acre Basis Dec. 1 Farm Price—Dolls. | Acr’ge Harv’t’d 1000 Acres Av. Yield per Acre—Bus. -- Production 1000 Bus. Av. Farm Price bu. Dec. 1—Ots. Farm Val.Dec.l 1000 Dolls. Val. Acre Basis Dec. 1 Farm Price—Dolls. 1866_ 206 14.3 2,949 49 1,455 7.01 8,864 1 30.2 268,141 35.1 94,058 10.61 1867— 262 13.3 3,479 46 1,595 6.12 10,082 27.6 278,698 44.5 123,903 12.29 1868_ 268 13.0 3,479 48 1,683 6.24 9,666 26.4 254,961 41.7 106,356 11.00 l86y_ 232 15.1 3,500 52 1,803 7.85 9,461 30.5 28S.334 38.0 109,522 11.58 1869... 3,220 282 107 1S70_ 170 16.2 2,750 51 1,407 8.26 8,792 28.1 247,277 39.0 96,444 10.97 1871— 208 10.6 2,200 57 1,246 6.04 8,366 30.6 255,743 36.2 92,591 11.07 1872— 207 13.8 2,860 71 2,027 9.80 9,001 30.2 271,747 29.9 81,304 9.03 1873— 193 16.3 3,146 52 1,622 8.48 9,752 27.7 270,340 34.6 93,474 9.59 1874_ 239 12.9 3,083 60 1,835 7.74 10,897 22.1 240,369 47.1 113,134 10.38 1875_ 250 13.0 3,250 51 1,643 6.63 11,915 29.7 354,318 32.0 113,441 9.52 1876_ 261 13.5 3,530 49 1,747 6.62 13,359 24.0 320,884 32.4 103,845 7.77 1877_ 257 15.5 3,980 45 1,781 6.98 12,826 31.7 406,394 28.4 115,546 9.01 1878_ 278 16.0 4,448 43 1,909 6.88 13,176 31.4 413,579 24.6 101,752 7.72 187 y_ 500 16.0 8,000 45 3,600 7.20 16,11/5 27.9 450,745 33.3 150,178 9.30 1879... 500 7.7 3,838 16,11/5 25.3 1/07,859 1880_ 501 11.0 5,515 51 2,813 5.61 16,188 25.8 417,885 36.0 150,244 9.28 18S1_ 506 8.1 4,081 62 2,530 5.02 16,832 24.7 416,481 46.4 193,199 11.48 1SS2_ 582 9.8 5,713 48 2,742 4.70 18,495 26.4 488,251 37.5 182,978 9.89 1883_ 594 8.7 5,142 51 2,622 4.44 20,325 28.1 571,302 32.7 187,040 9.20 1884_ 618 7.5 4,622 46 2,126 3.45 21,301 27.4 583,628 27.7 161,52S 7.58 1885_ 599 7.5 4,483 50 2,242 3.75 22,784 27.6 629,409 28.5 179,632 7.88 1886— 635 9.9 6,276 45 2,824 4.46 23,658 26.4 624,134 29.8 1S6.13S 7.86 1887_ 654 13.0 8,504 44 3,742 5.72 25,921 25.4 659,618 30.4 200,700 7.74 188S_ 661 9.2 6,078 46 2,796 4.23 26,998 26.0 701,735 27.8 195,424 7.24 1889... 51/2 10.2 5,52S 44 2,432 4.49 28,321 28.3 801,5S6 21.9 175,801 6.21 1889... 51/2 8.3 If,513 28,321 28.6 809,251 1890_ 540 9.2 4,96S 51 2,534 4.69 28,102 20.4 572,665 41.6 238,345 8.48 1891.— 425 9.5 4,03S 51 2,059 4.84 27,604 30.4 838,876 30.6 256,814 9.30 1892_ 400 9.7 3,880 45 1,746 4.36 28,023 24.8 695.267 31.5 218,954 7.81 1893_ 400 14.1 5,640 44 2,482 6.20 2S,452 23.8 676,154 29.1 196,505 6.90 1894_ 390 10.9 4,251 44 1,870 4.80 28,362 25.2 715,559 32.1 229,538 8.09 1S95_ 370 15.1 5,587 38 2,123 5.74 29,379 30.2 885,900 19.4 172,186 5.86 1896_ 340 12.0 4,080 35 1,428 4.20 29,645 26.3 780,563 18.3 143,192 4.83 1S97_ 310 13.0 4,030 37 1,491 4.81 28,353 27.9 791,591 20.8 164,886 5.82 1898— 300 14.3 4,290 37 1,587 5.29 28,769 29.3 842,747 25.2 212,482 7.39 1899_ 271 12.0 3,252 41 1,333 4.92 29,51/0 31.3 925,555 24.5 226,5SS 7.67 1899 _ 271 9.1 2,Jf55 29,51/0 31.9 91/3,389 1900_ 260 13.9 3,614 45 1,636 6.26 30,290 29.9 904,566 25.4 230,160 7.60 1901_ 260 14.4 3,744 51 1,909 7.34 29,894 26.0 778,531 40.0 311,374 10.42 1902— 250 12.7 3,175 51 1,619 6.48 30,578 34.5 1,055,441 30.6 322,944 10.56 1903_ 240 11.4 2,736 52 1,423 5.93 30,S66 27.5 848,824 33.8 286,879 9.29 1904_ 225 15.8 3,555 52 1,S49 8.22 31,353 32.1 1,007,183 31.0 312,467 9.97 1905_ 230 15.3 3,519 47 1,654 7.19 32.072 33.3 1,068,780 28.8 308,086 9.61 1908_ 225 16.2 3,645 49 1,786 7.94 33,353 31.0 1,034,623 31.8 329,142 9.87 1907_ 220 15.6 5,632 60 3,379 9.36 33,641 24.0 807,308 44.3 357,340 10.62 1908_ 230 16.5 3,795 63 2,391 10.40 34,006 24.9 847,109 47.3 400,363 11.77 1909_ 228 16.5 3,762 66 2,483 10.89 35,159 30.4 1,068,289 40.6 433,869 12.34 1909... 228 12.2 2,783 35,159 28.6 1,007.11/3 1910_ 221 18.2 4,022 60 2,413 10.92 37,548 31.6 1,186,341 34.4 408,388 10.88 1911_ 219 16.5 3,614 63 2,277 10.40 37,763 24.4 922,29S 45.0 414,663 10.98 1912_ 204 18.6 3,794 62 2,352 11.53 37,917 37.4 1,418,337 31.9 452,469 11.93 1913_ 230 19.5 4,485 61 2,736 11.90 3S,399 29.2 1,121,768 39.2 439,596 11.45 1914_ 250 17.5 4,375 65 2,844 11.3S 38,442 29.7 1,141,060 43.8 499,431 12.99 1915_ 350 23.0 8,050 62 4,991 14.26 40,996 37.8 1,549,030 36.1 559,506 13.65 1916_ 390 17.5 6,825 74 5,050 12.95 41,527 30.1 1,251,837 52.4 655,928 15.80 1917_ 275 16.0 4,400 93 4,092 14.88 43,553 36.6 1,592,740 66.6 1,061,474 24.37 1918_ 300 17.0 5,100 108 5,508 18.36 44,349 34.7 1,538,124 70.9 1,090,322 24.59 1919*_ 170 16.7 2,839 106 3,009 17.70 40,359 29.3 1,184,030 70.4 833,922 20.66 1919 126 13.3 1,671 37,991 27.8 1,055,183 1920_ 154 22.0 3,388 96 3,252 21.12 42,491 35.2 1,496,281 46.0 688,311 16.20 1921_ 170 18.0 3,060 70 2,142 12.60 45,495 23.7 1,078,341 30.2 325,954 7.16 1922**. 178 21.0 3,738 67 2,504 14.07 40,693 29.9 1,215,496 39.4 478,548 11.76 * Revisions based on 1919 census. * * Subject to revision December, 192 3. 22 Agricultural Graphics CHART 20.—OATS: YIELD PER ACRE, N. C. AND U. S. CHART 21.—OATS: FARM PRICE, N. C. AND U. S. Bushels per Acre Agricultural Graphics 23 58 CD O «\J ® o ^ ^ 5 O CN) t^moncDCDQOo^O^OCT>0 O OOQOCO CD CD CO CD 03 cd tr» tr» ov cry 10 19 ta 17 16 15 14 13 u K u 12 < CC u II * co O •'J vD O ^ o CD 00 O ^ ^ CD Q N ^ ^ — H2 CT) cn »J) CD O CvJ xt VO OD \£} cD t— t-— fc— t— D— CO CO CD CO OQ m (D CD 2? CD »• / 1 / / A, / • / \ # > \ A • ' / / 'n/ y / Ac' \ ^ / 1 \ l ,/ 1 1 I '< < ' .» ^Vj ...y 1 V ‘- - /— / \i / \ \ 1 1 1 , CO 03 « « too Jh O <1 rH U © . O, co Pi > © <1 H Pi . O m +2 2 Td o o o * ° pH rH © © ’£ Ph O c . >H ©) c3 © > pi <1 ,a OJ “ DQ a Q So s- o 03 O pH rH U O 03 Q rH I ai o.2 © ^ QPh UNITED STATES ?H 02 c© a> w s ©H i£ 0 A o S° <5 rH fH 0) iff! >* o > © <1 pi « © 0 • . to c3 'q £ o fH O o3 O pH rH CO c3 — © pq So © ^ | <3 rH i ^ O) «.s c3 a) ^ >QPh 1S68_ S3 66 54.78 102.2 79 0 80 71 1S69_ 76 71 53.96 78.7 92 8 73 03 1870— 108 60 64.80 107.4 8? 1 88 18 1871_ 101 62 62.62 99.0 78 4 77 62 1872_ 115 49 56.35 83.5 79 7 1873— 98 55 53.90 97.2 76.9 1874_ 95 55 52.25 82.4 76.1 62 71 1875_ 90 52 46.80 89.0 67.2 59.81 1876. _ 1877— 1878— 112 98.9 1879_ 94 49 _ 46.06 90.4 56.6 51.17 18S0„ 100 45 45.00 101.8 51.5 52.43 1881--. 1882— 95 45 42.75 96.2 60.5 58 20 1883—- 88 46 40.48 57.1 44 54 1884 78 46 35.88 | 78.8 57.5 45 31 1885' 96 41 1 39.36 96.4 50.3 48.49 1S86 96 41 39.36 87.5 51.5 45.00 1887 43 80.8 57.6 46.54 1888 95 43 40.85 97.2 47.9 46.56 1889 95 43 40 85 87.2 53.2 46.39 1S80 114 40 45.60 99.3 53.8 53.42 1891 101 44 44.44 88.5 50.1 44.34 1899; 95 88.0 1893 104 87.2 1SQ-1 100 37 37 00 92.4 45.5 42.04 1895 89 54 48 06 79.1 49.0 38.76 1S9G 80 32 25.60 70.8 44.3 31.36 1897 SO 34 27.20 72.0 50.0 36.00 1S98 95 98.3 7899_ 69 S4 5,782 40 2,313 34.40 537 79.1 42,517 52.9 22,476 41.11 1900— 69 88 6,072 42 2,550 36.96 544 88.9 4S,346 50.6 24,478 45.00 1901_ 71 87 6,177 46 2,841 40.02 547 81.7 44,697 57.5 25,720 47.02 1902— 70 88 6,160 46 2,834 40.48 532 85.2 45,344 58.1 26,35S 49.55 1903— 72 97 6,984 45 3,143 43.65 548 89.2 48,870 5S.3 28,478 51.97 1904-_ 73 100 7,300 50 3,650 50.00 54S 88.9 48,705 60.4 29,424 53.69 1905_ 73 95 6,935 47 3,259 44.65 551 92.6 51,034 58.3 29,734 53.98 1906-- 75 87 6,525 50 3,262 43.50 554 90.2 49,948 62.2 31,063 56.07 1907_ 78 90 7,020 60 4,212 54.00 i 565 88.2 49,813 70.0 34,858 61.70 1908— 80 93 7,440 53 3,943 49.29 599 92.4 55,352 66.1 36,564 61.04 1909_ 85 100 8,1,93 57 4,841 56.43 641 92.4 59,232 69.4 41,052 61.76 1910— 84 105 8,820 55 4,851 57.75 641 93.5 59,938 67.1 40,216 62.74 1911_ 77 86 ' 6,622 63 4,172 54.18 605 90.1 54,538 75.5 41,202 68.10 1912— 75 90 6,750 62 4,185 55. SO 583 95.2 55,479 72.6 40,264 69.06 1913— 80 100 8,000 61 4,880 61.00 625 94.5 59,057 72.6 42,884 68.61 1914_ 76 90 6,840 65 4,446 58.50 603 93.S 56,574 73.0 41,294 6S.48 1915-- 85 105 8,925 56 4,998 5S.80 731 103.5 75,639 62.1 46,980 64.27 1916_ 87 107 9,309 ■ 75 6,982 80.25 774 91.7 70,955 84.8 60,141 77.70 1917— 90 95 8,550 105 8,978 99.75 919 91.2 83,822 110.8 92,916 101.11 1918. - 95 110 10,450 132 13,794 145.20 940 93.5 87,924 135.2 118,863 126.45 1919*_ 87 102 9,309 138 12,846 147.66 941 103.2 97,126 134.4 130,514 138.70 1920—- 99 104 10,296 114 11,737 118.56 1992 104.8 103,925 113.4 117,834 118.78 1921—- 102 101 10,302 97 9,993 97.97 1,066 92.5 98,654 8S.1 86,S94 81.51 1922**- 110 113 12,430 80 9,944 90.40 1,116 ! 98.1 109,534 77.1 84,492 75.71 ** Subject to revision December, 1923. * Revisions based on 1919 census. 28 Agricultural Graphics CHART 28.—SWEET POTATOES: VALUE PER ACRE, N. C. AND U. S. TABLE VII—HAT (Tame) NORTH CAROLINA UNITED STATES ca a> Acr’g« Harv’t’d 1000 Acres Av. Yield per Acre—Tons Production 1000 Tons Av. Farm Price T. Dec. 1—Doll Farm Val.Dec.l 1000 Dolls. Val. Acre Basis Dec. 1 Farm Price—Dolls. Acr’ge Harv’t’d 1000 Acres Av. Yield per Acre—Tons Production 1000 Tons Av. Farm Price T. Dec. 1—Dolls Farm Val.Dec.l 1000 Dolls. Val. Acre Basis Dec. 1 Farm Price—Dolls. 1866_ 126 1.30 163 9.04 1,476 11.75 17,669 1.23 21,779 10.14 220,836 12 50 1867— 119 1.50 179 8.64 1,546 12.96 20,021 1.31 26,277 10.21 268'301 13.40 1868_ 149 1.25 186 11.16 2,076 13.95 21,542 1.21 26,142 10.0S 263^589 12.24 1869_ 111 1.44 160 9.60 1,535 13.82 18,591 1.42 26,420 10.18 268,933 14.47 1869. _ 84 27,316 1870_ 121 1.40 169 10.30 1,740 14.42 19,862 1.23 24,525 12.47 305,743 15.39 1871_ 74 1.13 S4 11.06 929 12.50 19,009 1.17 22,239 14.30 317,940 16.73 1872_ 75 1.20 90 12.53 1,128 15.04 20,319 1.17 23,813 12.94 308,025 15.16 1873_ 79 1.20 94 11.97 1,131 14.38 21,894 1.15 25,085 12.53 314,241 14.35 1874_ 84 1.25 105 13.37 1,401 16.71 21,770 1.15 25,134 11.94 300,222 13.79 1875_ 88 1.25 110 10.91 1,200 13.64 23,508 1.19 27,874 10.78 300,378 12.78 1876_ 93 1.25 116 30.19 1,184 12.74 25,283 1.22 30,867 8.97 276,991 10.96 1877— 93 1.35 126 9.41 1,185 12.70 25,368 1.25 31,629 S.37 264,880 10.44 1878_ 93 1.43 133 9.66 1,285 13.81 26,931 1.47 39,608 7.20 285,016 10.58 1879— 102 1.39 142 11.22 1,593 15.60 30,631 1.30 39,862 9.31 371,045 12.11 1879— 102 90 30,631 1.15 35,151 1880_ 74 1.53 114 10.55 1,199 16.14 25,864 1.23 31,925 11.65 371,811 14.38 1881_ 79 1.15 91 15.80 1,436 18.17 30,889 1.14 35,135 11.82 415,131 13.44 1882— 81 1.19 97 11.18 1,087 13.30 32,340 1.18 38,138 9.73 371,170 11.48 1S83_ 84 l.]5 96 10.77 1,039 12.39 35,516 1.32 46,864 8.19 383,834 10.81 1884_ 81 1.30 106 10.60 1,122 13.78 38,572 1.26 48,470 8.17 396,139 10.27 1885_ 102 .95 97 11.68 1,129 11.10 39,850 1.12 44,732 8.71 389,753 9.78 1886_ 107 1.04 111 11.00- 1,223 11.44 36,502 1.15 41,796 S.46 353,438 9.68 1887_ 139 1.15 160 10.57 1,689 12.16 37,665 1.10 41,454 9.97 413,440 10.98 1888... 140 1.10 154 13.10 2,022 14.41 38,592 1.21 46,643 S.76 408,500 10.59 1889_ 170 1.00 170 11.30 1,921 11.30 39,004 1.26 49,181 7.76 381,481 9.78 18S9. . 170 39,004 1890— 170 1.35 230 11.91 2,739 16.08 40,038 1.23 49,057 8.18 401,111 10.02 1891_ 170 1.10 187 11.00 2,057 12.10 41,25S 1.18 48,759 8.89 433,276 10.50 1S92_ ISO 1.20 216 10.55 2,279 12.66 42,191 1.17 49,238 8.95 440,710 10.45 1893_ 180 1.70 306 11.11 3,400 18.89 42,413 1.31 55,575 9.48 527,044 12.43 1894_ 180 1.45 261 10.93 2,853 15.85 42,772 1.18 50,468 8.90 452,079 10.57 1895_ 190 1.63 310 10.14 3,143 16.53 40,832 1.02 41,838 9.46 395,647 9.69 1896_ 190 1.26 239 10.75 2,569 13.54 40,978 1.33 54,380 7.48 406,957 9.93 1897_ 200 1.25 250 9.75 2,438 12.19 41,336 1.42 58,878 7.28 428,919 10.38 1898_ 200 1.70 340 9.30 3,162 15.81 43,120 1.55 66,772 6.63 442,905 10.27 1S99_ 204 1.50 306 10.10 3,091 15.15 43,127 1.33 57,450 8.20 470,844 10.92 1899 .. 204 1.03 211 43,127 1.25 53,828 1900_ 200 1.41 282 11.20 3,158 15.79 42,070 1.27 53,231 9.72 517,399 12.30 1901_ 210 1.66 349 10.80 3,769 17.93 42,066 1.33 55,819 9.91 553,328 13.15 1902_ 220 1.44 317 12.25 3,883 17.64 42,962 1.52 65,296 9.19 599,781 13.96 1903_ 230 1.60 368 13.42 4,939 21.47 43,400 1.57 68,154 9.35 637,485 14.69 1904_ 240 1.72 413 14.56 6,013 25.04 44,645 1.55 69,192 8.91 616,369 13.81 1905_ 250 1.60 400 12.80 5,120 20.48 45,991 1.59 72,973 8.59 627,023 13.63 1906_ 260 1.54 400 15.00 6,000 23.10 47,891 1.39 66,341 10.43 692,116 14.45 1907— 270 1.50 405 16.50 6,682 24.75 49,098 1.47 72,261 11.78 850,915 17.33 1908_ 300 1.50 450 13.50 6,075 20.25 51,196 1.53 78.440 9.14 716,644 14.00 1909_ 315 1.38 435 14.40 6,264 19.87 51,041 1.46 74,384 10.58 786,722 15.41 1909 315 .95 299 51,041 1.35 68,833 1910.._ 315 1.50 472 14.60 6,891 21.90 51,015 1.36 69,378 12.14 842,252 16.51 1911— 290 1.05 304 17.00 5,168 17.85 48,240 1.14 54,916 14.29 784,926 16.27 1912_ 293 1.30 381 16.70 6,363 21.71 49,530 1.47 72,691 11.79 856,695 17.30 1913— 320 1.31 419 16.50 6,914 21.62 48,954 1.31 64,116 12.43 797,077 16.28 1914_ 320 1.15 368 17.10 6,293 19.66 49,145 1.43 70,071 11.12 779,068 15.85 1915— 350 1.85 648 16.50 10,692 30.52 51.10S 1.68 85,920 10.63 913,644 17.88 1916_ 440 1.30 572 17.50 10,010 22.75 55,721 1.64 91,192 11.22 1,022,930 18.36 1917— 506 1.13 572 19.70 11,268 22.26 55,203 1.51 83,308 17.09 1,423,766 25.79 1918— 640 1.20 768 21.00 16,128 25.20 55,755 1.37 76,660 20.13 1,543,494 27.68 1919*_ 682 1.02 696 24.20 16,843 24.68 56,888 1.52 86,359 20.08 1,734,085 30.4S 1919 1920_ 640 1.05 672 23.00 15,456 24.15 58,101 1.51 87,S55 17.76 1,560,235 26.85 1921_ 690 1.30 897 19.80 17,761 25.74 58,769 1.40 82,379 12.11 997,527 16.97 1922**. 800 1.40 1,120 18.20 | 20,384 25.48 61,20S 1.58 96,687 12.59 1,217,044 19.88 * Revisions based on 1919 census. Subject to revision December, 1923. Dollars per Ton Tons per Acre 30 Agricultural Graphics 8 CHART 30.—HAY, TAME: FARM PRICE, N. C. AND U. S. 9 0 Agricultural Graphics 31 Hay. There have been many ups and downs in the average yield per acre (chart 29) of tame hay in North Carolina, though the geneial trend for the United States has been in the main steadily upward. We are at present on the upward path, but there has been a big decline from our levels around 1904, when we reached our top notch. Comparing the averages for 1913-22 and 1866-75, we find that North Carolina has declined in yield per acre 1.6 percent while the United States has gained 22.2 percent. W e shall have to change this condition when we in¬ crease our livestock to the extent that is becoming urgently necessary. Our farm price per ton of hay (chart 30) has been almost constantly considerably higher than the United States average, and has increased 78.2 percent, while the United States has gained in price of hay per ton only 25.6 percent. Conse¬ quently our value per acre of hay (chart 31) has been almost uniformly much above the United States average and our gain, comparing the decades 1866-75 and 1913-22, has been 74.0 per- CHART 31.—HAY, TAME: VALUE PER ACRE, N. C. AND U. S. 32 Agricultural Graphics TABLE VIII—COTTON* NORTH CAROLINA UNITED STATES Year Acr’ge Picked 1000 Acres Av. Yield per Acre—Lbs. Production 1000 Bales Av. Farm Price Lb.Dec.1—Cts. Farm Val.Dec.l 1000 Dolls. Yal. Acre Basis Dec. 1 Farm Price—Dolls. Acr’ge Picked 1000 Acres Av. Yield per Acre—Lbs. Production 1000 Bales Av. Farm Price Lb.Dec.1—Cts. Farm Val.Dec.l 1000 Dolls. Val. Acre Basis Dec. 1 Farm Price——Dolls. 1866 __ 386 250 91 7 699 199 0 1,750 1867 __ 559 160 150 7 82S 189.8 2 340 1868 380 176 140 6 799 192 2 2,380 — 1869 418 145 145 7 743 196.9 3,012 1870-. 452 175 170 » ass’ 1 Q» 9 3 800 1871—. 388 143 127 7 558 148 2 2553 1872___ 451 173 ISO s’ 920 1873_ 514 159 176 9510 179 7 3 683 1874- - 609 172 238 11 764 147 5 3 941 1875— 621 156 218 11 934 190 6 5 123 1876_ 609 184 210 9.0 10,085 16.56 11,677 167.8 4’,438 9.0 174,724 14.96 1877— 585 1 S 6 242 12 133 163 8 4 370 1878_ 590 169 222 8.4 8,383 14.20 12,344 191.2 i 5,244 8.2 192,515 15.59 1879— 893 156 390 11.0 15,327 17.16 UAS0 181.0 5,755 10.3 269,305 18.60 1880_ 974 198 411 10.0 19,276 19.80 15,951 184.5 6,343 9.8 289,083 18.12 1881_ 1,061 150 380 16 711 149 8 1 5 45 $ 1882_ 1,051 194 463 9.5 19,362 18.43 16,277 185^7 6,957 9.1 275,513 16.93 1883— 1,051 177 398 9.3 17,293 16.46 16,778 164.8 5,701 9.1 250,977 14.96 1884_ 1,061 175 404 9.3 17,269 16.28 17,440 153.8 5,682 9.2 246,575 14.14 1885___ 1,072 157 407 8.5 14,301 13.34 18,301 164.4 6,575 8.4 251,775 13.76 1886— 1,072 157 366 8.3 13,965 13.03 18,455 169.5 6,446 8.1 251,856 13.65 1887_ 1,066 191 444 8.7 17,719 16.62 18,641 182.7 7,020 8.5 290,901 15.61 1888_ 1,072 165 365' 8.5 15,030 14.02 19,059 ISO. 4 6,941 8.5 292,139 15.33 1889_ 1,14 7 98 336 8.5 9,556 8.33 20,175 159.7 ! 7,1,73 8.5 275,249 13.64 1890_ 1,082 182 490 8.7 17,135 15.S3 19,512 187.0 8,674 8.6 313,360 16.06 1891_ 1,017 178 415 7.4 13,399 13.17 19,059 179.4 9,018 7.2 247,633 12.99 1892_ 773 183 300 8.6 12,167 15.74 15,911 209.2 6,664 8.3 277,194 17.42 1893— 1,180 174 400 7.2 14,783 12.53 19,525 149.9 7,493 7.0 204,983 10.50 1894_ 1,297 210 455 5.0 13,613 10.50 23,688 195.3 9,476 4.6 212,335 8.96 1895— 1,050 168 398 8.2 14,467 13.78 20,185 155.6 7,161 7.6 238,503 11.82 1896_ 1,229 208 522 6.7 17,096 13.94 23,273 1S4.9 8,533 6.7 286,169 12.30 1897— 1,302 184 647 7.0 16,775 12.88 24,320 182.7 10,898 6.7 296,816 12.20 1898— 1,312 227 630 5.9 17,568 13.39 24,967 220.6 11,189 5.7 315,449 12.63 1899*_ 1,087 193 440 7.2 15,854 13.90 24,275 183.8 9,345 7.0 326,215 13.41 1900_ 1,143 199 477 9.4 22,432 18.71 24,933 194.4 10,123 9.2 463,310 IS. 58 1901_ 1,395 142 416 7.2 14,969 10.22 26,774 170.0 9,510 7.0 334,088 12.48 1902— 1,111 236 550 8.0 21,982 18.88 27,175 187.3 10,631 7.6 403,718 14.86 1903— 1,201 210 529 10.6 28,021 12.26 27,052 174.3 9,851 10.5 516,763 19.10 1904_ 1,439 233 704 9.2 32,373 21.44 31,215 205.9 13,438 9.0 603,438 19.33 1905_ 1,230 240 619 10.8 33,434 25.92 27,110 186.6 10,575 10.8 569,791 21.02 1906-. 1,374 201 579 9.5 27,518 19.10 31,374 202.5 13,274 9.6 635,534 20.26 1907— 1,408 205 605 10.2 30,871 20.91 29,660 179.1 11,107 10.4 575,226 19.39 1908— 1,458 211 647 9.0 29,113 18.99 32,444 194.9 13,242 8.7 575,092 17.73 1909_ 1,359 210 601 13.9 41,742 29.19 30,938 154.3 10,005 13.9 697,681 22.55 1910_ 1,478 227 706 14.1 49,783 32.01 32,403 170.7 11,609 14.1 820,407 25.32 1911— 1,624 315 1,076 8.8 47,336 27.72 36,045 207.7 15,693 8.8 687,888 19.08 1912— 1,545 267 866 12.2 52,805 32.57 34,283 190.9 13,703 11.9 817,055 23.83 1913— 1,576 239 793 12.6 49,930 30.11 37,089 182.0 14,156 12.2 862,708 23.26 1914— 1,527 290 931 6.9 32,107 20.01 36,832 209.2 16,135 6.8 549,036 14.91 1915_ 1,282 260 699 11.2 39,172 29.12 31,412 170.3 11,192 11.3 631,460 20.10 1916— 1,451 215 655 19.4 63,496 41.71 34,985 156.6 11,450 19.6 1,122,295 32.08 1917_ 1,515 194 618 27.7 85,591 53.74 33,841 159.7 11,302 27.7 1,566,198 46.28 1918_ 1,600 268 898 26.4 118,504 70.75 36,OOS 159.6 12,041 27.6 1,663,633 46.20 1919_ 1,490 266 830 35.2 146,232 93.63 33,566 161.5 11,421 35.6 2,034,658 60.62 1920— 1,587 275 925 14.5 67,045 39.88 35,878 17S.4 13,440 13.9 933,658 26.02 1921— 1,403 264 776 16.4 63,650 43.30 30,509 124.5 7,954 16.2 643,933 21.05 1922**. 1,626 250 852 24.5 104,370 61.25 33,742 141.6 9,964 23.8 1,192,461 35.21 0 * From 1899 to 1921 production figures are census returns from ginners. ** Subject to revision. Agricultural Graphics 33 cent, while the United States gain in value per acre of this crop has been 53.4 percent. These high prices for hay in North Carolina account for the fact that while our hay production in 191/-21 constituted only nine-tenths of one percent of the entire United States crop the value of our crop represented in these years 3.7 percent of our aggregate crop values. Cotton. Conditions with regard to our cotton crop are changing so radically and so rapidly that it is impossible to fore¬ cast the future from the past. In 1917-21 our cotton crop con¬ stituted 7.2 percent of the United States total cotton crop, and the value of our cotton crop was 22.8 percent of our aggregate crop values. Furthermore in the last two years we have been among the leading five states in the production of cotton—not because of gains on our part, but because of greater losses on the part of states that have succumbed more completely to the boll weevil than we have as yet. But that our history in this crop will paral- CHART 32.—COTTON: YIELD PER ACRE, N. C. AND U. S. 34 Agricultural Graphics lei that of the other cotton states when struck by the boll weevil, can hardly be doubted. Chart 32 shows the trend of our yield per acre mounting steadily and rapidly almost without break until 1920, but the decline since that date is ominous. It sounds the crack of doom unless we reorganize our farming system, improve our marketing methods, and raise our level in livestock and dairy farming. Comparing the decades 1866-75 and 1913-22, we will be seen to have gained in per-acre yield of cotton 47.4 percent, while the United States has declined 6.7 percent in per-acre yield. The cotton market is a world market, consequently prices in North Carolina and the United States have kept very closely together (chart 33). The gain in both the state and the United States in price per pound in the period considered has been close to 108 percent. Because of our high yields, however, our gain in value per acre (chart 34) has been 192.5 percent, while the United States gain has been 105.1 percent. But this it must be borne in mind is past history, and the future is all unknown. Tobacco. Unlike our cotton yield, our tobacco yield per acre is by no means high (chart 35). Moreover, a comparison of the two decades 1866-75 and 1913-22 shows that wie have gained only 9.0 percent in yield per acre, while the United States gain is 12.5 percent. It is to our large tobacco acreage that we owe our position among the five leading tobacco states, and our pro¬ duction of 23.2 percent of the total United States crop on an average for the years 1917-21. This large production brought the value of our tobacco crop in these years up to over a quarter of our aggregate state crop values (25.7 percent). Our price per pound has been uniformly somewhat above the United States price per pound (chart 36) ; but, because of our comparatively low yield per acre, our value per acre (chart 37) has been until recent years considerably below the United States average. However, within the last five years our gains in farm price per pound have been such as to put us above the United States average in value per acre. Comparing the decades 1866-75 and 1913-22, North Carolina is found to have gained in price per pound 134.6 percent, and the United States 120.1 percent; and in Gents per Pound Cents per Pound 0LLAR5 PER Acre Agricultural Graphics 35 TABLE IX—TOBACCO Year NORTH CAROLINA Acr’ge Harv’t’d 1000 Acres Av. Yield per Acre—Lbs. Production 1000 Lbs. Av. Farm Price Lb.Dec.1—Cts. Farm Val.Dec.l 1000 Dolls. Val. Acre Basis Dec. 1 Farm Price—Dolls. I860.— 683 14.3 97 67 1867_ 652 12.4 80.85 1868_ 657 12.4 81.47 1869_ 508 10.9 55.37 1870.. 586 12.7 74.42 1871— 599 9.3 55.71 1872 — 666 8.9 59.27 1873. 591 8.3 49.05 1874 — 330 14.4 47.52 1875 500 8.5 42.50 1876.. 550 8.2 45.10 1877 1878 .. 620 6.0 37.20 1879—. 556 7.0 38.92 1SS0 9.0 50.85 18S1 443 13.5 59.80 1882 .. 500 12.0 60.00 1883 484 12.5 60.50 1884 . 501 11.5 57.62 1885 480 10.6 50.88 1886 .. 420 9.5 39.90 18S7 485 10.0 48.50 1888— 451 8.0 33.82 1889 . 375 11.0 48.73 18-% 560 11.0 61.60 1891 490 9.6 47.04 1899 485 9.5 46.0S 18Q3 509 8.0 40.72 1894 662 9.0 59.58 1895 800 9.2 73.60 189ft 510 8.0 40.80 1897 550 1898 550 1899 560 36.96 1899 _ '203 628 127,503 6.6 8,415 1900— 193 618 119,505 7.0 8,096 43.26 1901_ 189 560 105,808 9.0 9,714 50.40 1902— 219 650 142,521 7.0 9,976 45.50 1903_ 215 627 134,729 6.3 8,488 39.50 1904_ 144 685 98,618 8.6 8,481 5S.91 1905_ 137 608 83,156 8.8 7,318 53.50 1906_ 120 580 69,808 10.0 6,981 58.00 1907_ 161 625 100,875 11.0 11,096 68.75 1908_ 200 670 134,000 10.5 14,070 70.35 1909 240 600 144,000 57.00 1909 _ 222 626 138,813 9.5 13,187 1910... 200 600 120,000 10.6 12,720 63.60 1911_ 140 710 99,400 11.6 11,530 82.36 1912. 179 620 110,980 16.0 17,757 99.20 1913_ 250 670 167,500 18.5 30,988 123.95 1914_ 265 650 172,250 11.5 19,809 74.75 1915... 320 620 19S,400 11.2 22,221 69.44 1916_ 320 550 176,000 20.0 35,200 110.00 1917— 380 630 239,400 31.5 75,411 198.45 1918— 468 705 329,940 35.1 115,809 247.46 1919*.. 528 616 325,248 53.6 174,333 330.18 101Q ft 10 3S0 IftS 1920 — 625 694 433,750 25.3 109,739 175.58 1921 . 450 561 252,450 26.0 65,637 145.86 1922**. 515 596 306,940 30.3 93,003 180.59 UNITED STATES Acr’ge Harv’t’d 1000 Acres Av. Yield per Acre—Lbs. Production 1000 Lbs. Av. Farm Price Lb.Dec.1—Cts. Farm Val.Dec.l 1000 Dolls. Val. Acre Basis Dec. 1 Farm Price—Dolls. 735.8 9.6 71.91 634.6 9.4 59.82 751.4 9.3 69.81 569.1 9.3 58.05 757.9 9.6 72.61 750.3 8.8 66.40 821.8 9.2 75.98 775.3 7.6 59.10 633.2 11.8 74 79 678.6 7.0 47.32 705.0 6.8 47.97 723.1 5.6 40.70 795.1 5.8 46.18 740.7 8.2 60.44 696.2 9.6 67.11 764.1 8.4 64.32 9.0 63.34 747.2 8.2 60.94 747.8 7.7 57.49 709.9 7.4 52.61 645.2 10.6 68.44 757.1 7.7 58.43 645.0 7.1 46.58 722.8 8.3 59.34 747.4 8.5 63.77 687.6 9.3 63.93 687.1 8.1 55.70 777.4 6.8 ' 53.07 775.4 7.2 56.12 677.6 6.0 40.79 645.9 745.4 728.5 51.99 1,101 788.5 868,113 7.2 62,104 1,046 778.0 814,345 6.6 53,661 51.28 1,039 7S8.0 818,953 7.1 58,283 56.08 1,031 797.3 821,824 7.0 57,564 55.85 1,038 786.3 815,972 6.8 55,515 53.50 806 819.0 660,461 8.1 53,383 66.20 776 815.6 633,034 8.5 53,619 68.96 796 857.2 682,429 10.0 68,233 85.71 821! 850.5 698,126 10.2 71,411 87.00 876 ! 820.2 718,061 10.3 74,130 S4.68 1,180 804.3 949,357 81.10 1,295 815.3 . 1,055,765 10.1 106,599 1,366 807.7 1,103,415 9.3 102,142 74.77 1,013 893.7 905,109 9.4 85,210 84.13 1,226 785.5 962,855 10.8 104,063 84.89 1,216 784.3 953,734 12.8 122,481 100.72 1,224 845.7 1,034,679 9.8 101,411 82.89 1,370 775.4 1,062,237 9.1 96,281 70.28 1,413 816.0 1,153,278 14.7 169,672 120.05 1,518 823.1 1,249,276 24.0 300,449 197.95 1,647 873.7 1,439,071 28.0 402,264 244.23 1,951 751.1 1,465,481 39.0 570,868 292.60 1,861/ 736.6 1,372,993 1,960 807.3 1,582,225 21.2 335,675 171.26 1,427 749.6 1,069,693 19.9 212,728 149.07 1,725 768.0 1,324,840 23.1 306,179 177.50 * Revisions based on 1919 census. ** Subject to revision December, 1923. Cents per Pound Pounds per Acre. 36 Agricultural Graphics «0 CD VD <£> CD CD O r- QD £ g CD CD {S ?E S ® oo CO CO CD & CO &8S£r;c : >ooe>£S^ CHART 35.—TOBACCO: YIELD PER ACRE, N. C. AND U. S. CHART 36.—TOBACCO: FARM PRICE, N. C. AND U. S. Cents per Pound Pounds per Acre Dollars pe. Agricultural Graphics 37 CHART 37.—TOBACCO: VALUE PER ACRE, N. C. ARD U. S. Dollars per Acre 38 Agricultural Graphics value per acre North Carolina has gained 157.3 percent and the United States only 146.9 percent. Our tobacco future like our cotton future is problematic, and we would do well not to build too confidently on continued pros¬ perity sourced predominantly in this crop. 5. Other Crops . Other crops than the eight crops already considered constitute a little over a fifth (20.4 percent) of the aggregate (hypothetical) crop values in North Carolina on an average for the five-year period 1917-21 (chart 5). For these other crops statistics back to 1866 are not available except for rye and buckwheat; and the value of rye and buckwheat in North Carolina is so small that they have not been included in the de¬ tailed tables and charts of this bulletin. Rye represented only two-tenths of one percent of our aggregate crop values in the five-year period 1917-21 (which includes the war period of in¬ creased grain production), and buckwheat represented a much smaller quantity even than this. Of considerably grteater importance is the value of our peanut crop. We stand among the first five states in the produc¬ tion of peanuts; but comparable statistics for this crop have been compiled only since 1916. On an average for the five-year period 1917-21, the value of our peanuts amounted to nearly ten and three-quarters million dollars, and this represented two and a half percent of our aggregate crop values and an eighth of the value of all the crops other than those which have been tabulated and charted in this bulletin. Cowpeas, soy beans, and sorghum sirup also represent appre¬ ciable percentages in our crop values. Fruit and truck crops have not been reported statistically in a way that makes it possible to include them in tables covering any considerable number of years. They are very important in particular localities, but do not represent large proportions of our aggregate crop values. II. Livestock The subject of our livestock becomes increasingly important as our production of cash crops becomes endangered by boll- weevil ravages and other uncertainties. It may even be to our advantage to have our attention forcibly directed to this mat- TABLE X—HORSES AND MULES ON FARMS HORSES 1 MULES NORTH CAROLINA UNITED STATES 1 NORTH v i CAROLINA UNITED STATES Jan. 1 Number Thousands Price per head Jan. 1—Dols. Farm Val. Jan.l—1M Dols. Number Thousands Price per head Jan. 1—Dols. Farm Val. Jan.l—1M Dols Number Thousands Price per head Jan. 1—Dols. Farm Val. Jan.l—1M Dols. Number Thousands Price per head Jan. 1—Dols. Farm Val. Jan.l—1M Dols. 1867_ 99 57.81 5,749 5,401 59.05 318,924 33 63.37 2,063 822 66.94 55,048 1868— 98 50.69 4,990 5,757 54.27 312,416 33 58.87 1,936 856 56.04 47/954 1869_ 98 67.77 6,672 6,333 62.57 396,222 34 83.16 2,789 922 79.23 73*027 1S70_ 126 76.46 9,595 8,249 67.43 556,251 44 96.21 4,195 1,180 90.42 106,654 1870*.. 108 7 .145 51 1125 1871— 127 81.67 10,348 8,702 71.14 619,039 44 103.37 4,590 1,242 91.98 114,272 1872— 130 82.99 10,830' 8,991 67.41 606,111 46 101.76 4,650 1,276 87.14 111,222 1873— 132 80.33 10,587 9,222 66.39 612,273 48 99.84 4,742 1,310 85.15 11R546 1874_ 132 76.90 10,135 9,334 65.15 608,073 48 93.53 4,527 1,339 81.35 108,953 1875— 133 70.23 9,348 9,504 61.10 580,708 49 85.43 4,212 1,394 71.89 100,197 1876— 140 65.82 9,195 9,935 57.29 557,747 52 72.47 3,747 1,414 66.46 94,001 1877— 141 65.15 9,187 10,155 55.83 567,017 53 68.46 3,608 1,444 64.07 92,482 1878— 142 65.28 9,296 10,330 56.63 584,999 55 68.64 3,796 1,638 62.03 10R579 1879... 145 56.54 8,210 10,939 52.36 572,712 74 60.13 4,450 1,713 56.00 95,942 1880_ 147 59.22 8,688 11,202 54.75 613,297 75 61.65 4,605 1,730 61.26 105,948 18S0*- m 10,357 82 1 813 1881_ 147 67.31 9,874 11,430 58.44 667,954 75 74.64 5,576 1,721 69.79 120,096 1882-.. 134 65.30 8,773 10,522 58.53 615,825 82 73.64 6,059 1,835 71.35 130,945 1883— 136 72.30 9,811 10,838 70.59 765,041 82 91.66 7,542 1,871 79.49 148,732 1884_ 137 77.21 10,582 11,170 74.64 833,734 85 84.32 7,146 1,914 84.22 161,215 1885— 141 77.71 10,970 11,565 73.70 852,283 86 84.47 7,230 1,973 82.38 162,497 1886_ 143 74.53 10,626 12,078 71.27 860,823 86 83.19 7,192 2,053 79.60 163,381 1887_ 143 75.14 10,713 12,497 72.15 901,686 88 79.32 6,994 2,117 78.91 167,058 1888_ 150 74.59 11,167 13,173 71.82 946,096 90 84.13 7,567 2,192 79.78 174,854 1889_ 151 76.58 11,579 13,663 71.89 982,195 91 84.90 7,712 2,258 79.49 179,444 1890— 154 73.58 11,347 14,214 68.84 978,517 96 81.84 7,881 2,331 73.25 182,394 1890*. 131 Ilf,969 99 2,296 1891_ 147 78.25 11,465 14,057 67.00 941,823 98 88.94 8,735 2,297 77.88 178,847 1892— 132 78.62 10,367 15,498 65.01 1,007,594 100 88.13 8,829 2,315 75.55 174,882 1893_ 133 77.67 10,344 16,207 61.22 992,225 100 86.49 8,630 2,331 70.68 164,764 1894_ 135 72.20 9,712 16,081 47.83 769,225 110 77.64 8,522 2,352 62.17 146,233 1895_ 140 55.05 7,702 15,893 36.29 576,731 110 58.79 6,452 2,333 47.55 110,928 1896_ 144 54.36 7,833 15,124 33.07 500,140 111 59.31 6,575 2,279 45.29 103,204 1897— 146 44.76 6,515 14,365 31.51 452,649 111 49.98 5,541 2,216 41.66 92,302 1898— 147 47.16 6,932 13,961 34.26 478,362 113 53.64 6,036 2,190 43.88 96,110 1899_ 147 47.96 7,036 13,665 37.40 511,075 111 55.65 6,199 2,134 44.96 95,963 1900.-- 148 53.50 7,927 13,538 44.61 603,969 113 63.47 7,142 2,086 53.55 111,717 1900* 159 18,261 136 3,265 1901_ 167 65.46 10,960 16,745 52.86 885,200 138 77.67 10,723 2,864 63.97 183,232 1902_ 164 66.99 10,991 16,531 58.61 968,935 137 80.13 10,953 2,757 67.61 186,412 1903_ 162 71.16 11,558 16,557 62.25 1,030,706 138 85.54 11,809 2,728 72.49 197,753 1904_ 161 SI .06 13,035 16,736 67.93 1,136,940 139 95.65 13,337 2,758 78.88 217,533 1905_ 164 87.25 14,311 17,058 70.37 1,200,310 142 102.92 14,636 2,889 87.18 251,840 1906 - 180 98.62 17,794 18,719 80.72 1,510,890 166 116.80 19,435 3,404 98.31 334,681 1907 186 114.00 21,183 19,747 93.51 1,846,578 175 136.00 23,740 3,817 112.16 428,064 1908 190 107.00 20,330 19,992 93.41 1,867,530 177 126.00 22,302 3,869 107.76 416,939 1909. - 192 110.00 21,120 20,640 95.64 1,974,052 179 127.00 22,733 4,053 107.84 437,082 91 040 115 4,123 lylU_ 1910**- iOO 166 121.00 20,086 19,833 108.03 2,142,524 115 137.00 23,975 It,210 120.20 506,049 1911 168 126.00 21.168 20,277 111.46 2,259,981 178 146.00 25,988 4,323 125.92 544,359 1912 173 126.00 2l'79S 20,509 105.94 2,172,694 1 S2 144.00' 26,208 4,362 120.51 525,657 1913 176 198.00 22.528 20,567 110.77 2,278,222 186 148.00] 27,528 4,386 124.31 545,245 1914 180 139.00 25,020 20,962 109.32 2,291,638 192 160.00 30,720 4,449 123.85 551,017 1915_ 182 130.00 23,660 21,195 103.33 2,190,102 194 151.00 29,294 4,479 112.36 503,271 1910 185 122.00 22,570 21,159 101.60 2,149,786 200 140.00 28,000 4,593 113.83 522,834 icn'7 185 125.00 23*125 21,210 102.89 2,182,307 205 150.00 30,750 4,723 118.15 558,006 1918 187 140.00 26,180 21,555 104.24 2,246,970 210 167.00 35,070 4,873 128.SI 627,679 1919 181 146.00 26,426 21,482 98.45 2,114,897 225 176.00 39,600 4,954 135.83 6 / '‘It y [) 2/*2 1920— 111 156.00 26,676 19,766 96.51 1,907,646 251 192.00 49,344 5,427 148.42 805,495 in yfff 251 5 1920*** 1091 111 166 125.00 20,750 19,208 84.31 1,619,423 260 156.00 40,560 5,455 116.69 636,56S 1999 166 108.00 17,928 19,056 70.54 1,344,136 257 129.00 33,153 5,467 88.09 481,578 1923— 166 108.00 17,928 18,853 69.75 1,314,956 260 128.00 33,280 5,506 85.S6 472,735 * Census, June 1. ** Census, April 15. *** Census, January 1. 40 Agricultural Graphics ter; and it is by no means beyond belief that we may not soon be erecting monuments, as has come about elsewhere, in gratitude to that gobble-un that will surely git us ef we don’t watch out (to quote Little Orphant Annie). But this result will be brought about only if we set to work promptly to master the lesson ex¬ perience is teaching other states. They have not yet learned it thoroughly and we are only now being compelled to buck up against it; and to this fact in some measure are due the strides we have made ahead of some of our southern competitors. But our hour is at hand, and we must look facts in the face. Our livestock level is pitifully low. Only four states fall below us when the states are ranked according to their status in percent of a lightly stocked farm area. And when it comes to pure-bred livestock, only two states (South Carolina and Louisi¬ ana) stand below us in percent of farms reporting one or more pure-bred horses, dairy cows, beef cattle, sheep, or swine. Furthermore, in livestock values per farm in 1920, only Ala¬ bama is below us, and that by a single dollar, while South Caro¬ lina, next above us, has thirty-three dollars per farm more in livestock values than we. See tables in the University News Let¬ ter, Vol. VIII, Nos. 29 and 32, and Vol. IX, No. 1. Moreover, looking in detail at the figures shown in Tables X to XII, it is plain that we have made relatively little progress in livestock in the fifty-seven years considered in this bulletin. Horses and Mules. Horses and mules (Table X) make the best showing, because they are indispensable work animals. But while our horses were increasing 68 percent (from 99,000 in 1867 to 166,000 in 1923), the horses in the United States at large were increasing 249 percent (from 5,4-01,000 in 1867 to 18,853,000 in 1923). In mules we more than kept pace with the United States in percent of increase; we have nearly eight times as many mules now as in 1867 (260,000 now, compared with 33,000 at the earlier date), whereas the United States at large has less than seven times as many now as in 1867 (5,506,000 compared with 822,000). The curves of trend in price for horses and for mules are very similar (charts 38 and 39). In both cases the North Caro¬ lina price is higher than the United States price, and in both cases there has been a greater increase in price in North Caro- Agricultural Graphics 41 CHART 39.—MULES: FARM PRICE, N. C. AND U. S. TABLE XI—CATTLE ON FARMS MILCH COWS NORTH CAROLINA UNITED STATES n c3 w 73 U A C d _D 2 C d d 5 c r d Si 2 rC o mQ © I ft | C rH o •r? ^ ®s Ph >“3 o Q cS pi Pm OQ 73 * c C cc o -J1 S§ cfi a: £EH 73 ©J£ rC O Sr Q O I p< I Cl T—I |s ifl o O iS cS P) Pm =« ft UNITED STATES OO T3 Mi Pi © cS X? CG 3 g c ^ rd o Srfi © I ft I © tH •a Pi »H c3 Ph t-s co o ft I s c3 i K* « s Pi I s8 1 l-B L867_ 1868— 1869 _ 1870 _ 1870*.. 204 204 206 206 197 14.90 13.73 15.27 16.94 3,032 2,795 3,140 3,481 8,349 8,692 9,248 10,096 8,935 28.74 26.56 29.15 32.70 239,947 230,817 269,610 330,175 293 287 281 296 32k 6.69 6.74 8.19 9.19 1,961 1,935 2,305 2,716 11,731 11,942 12,185 15,388 14,885 15.79 15.06 18.73 18.87 185,254 179,888 228,183 290,401 1871_ 203 20.39 4,147 10,023 33.89 339,701 298 9.65 2,879 16,212 20.78 336,860 1872— 205 20.06 4,121 10,304 29.45 303,438 307 9.58 2,943 16,390 18.12 296,932 1873-- 201 15.15 3,048 10,576 26.72 282,559 316 8.74 2,767 16,414 18.06 296,448 1874_ 199 14.09 2,806 10,705 25.63 274,326 316 8.53 2,699 16,218 17.55 284,706 1875_ 197 14.32 2,823 10,907 25.74 280,701 310 7.88 2,443 16,313 16.91 275,872 1876_ 201 13.59 2,732 11,085 25.61 283,879 313 8.95 2,802 16,785 17.00 285,387 1877_ 203 14.14 2,871 11,261 25.47 286,778 316 9.85 3,116 17,956 15.99 287,156 1878— 230 15.05 3,461 11,300' 25.74 290,898 420 9.30 3,906 19,223 16.72 321,346 1879_ 232 22.20 5,157 11,826 21.71 256,721 416 8.17 3,398 21,408 15.38 329,254 1880— 230 12.60 2,898 12,027 23.27 279,899 416 8.31 3,455 21,231 16.10 341,761 1880*.. 232 12M3 Jf25 23,482 1881_ 230 13.46 3,096 12,369 23.95 296,277 407 8.77 3,574 20,939 17.33 362,862 1882_ 230 14.03 3,224 12,612 25.S9 326,489 430 10.25 4,403 23,280 19.89 463,070 1883_ 237 17.18 4,067 13,126 30.21 396,575 428 10.68 4,572 28,946 21.81 611,549 1884— 234 17.00 3,984 13,501 31.37 423,4S7 420 10.84 4,547 29,046 23.52 683,229 1885_ 241 17.00 4,103 13,905 29.70 412,903 428 11.91 5,096 29,867 23.25 691,383 1886_ 239 16.65 3,979 14,235 27.40 389,986 424 10.24 4,339 31,275 21.17 661,956 1887_ 241 15.75 3,801 14,522 26.08 378,790 419 9.99 4,188 33,512 19.79 663,138 1888— 244 16.00' 3,900 14,856 24.65 366,252 419 10.99 4,607 34,378 17.79 611,751 1889_ 247 16.50 4,082 15,299 23.94 366,226 419 11.41 4,783 35,032 17.05 597,237 1890_ 272 16.04 4,365 15,953 22.14 353,152 398 10.47 4,170 36,849 15.21 560,625 1890*.. 223 16,512 lt07 33,734 1891_ 267 17.50 4,667 16,020 21.62 346,398 390 11.12 4,343 36,876 14.76 544,128 1892_ 269 17.60 4,741 16,416 21.40 351,378 390 11.59 4,527 37,051 15.16 570,749 1893— 272 16.50 4,489 16,424 21.75 357,300 383 11.14 4,262 35,054 15.24 547,882 1894_ 275 14.99 4,119 16,487 21.77 358,999 386 11.15 4,308 36,608 14.66 536,790 1895_ 275 14.66 4,028 16,505 21.97 362,602 379 9.58 3,629 34,364 14.06 482,999 1896_ 272 14.40 3,917 16,138 22.55 363,956 364 10.12 3,680 32,085 15.86 508,928 1897— 267 13.75 3,666 15,942 23.16 369,240 345 9.55 3,300 30,508 16.65 507,929 1898— 259 14.70 3,802 15,841 27.45 434,814 321 9.92 3,188 29,264 20.92 612,297 1899.._ 248 15.90 3,947 15,990 29.66 474,234 296 10.86 3,211 27,994 22.79 637,931 1900_ 243 18.20 4,428 16,292 31.60 514,812 275 12.31 3,384 27,610 24.97 689,486 1900*.. 233 17,136 391 50,586 1901_ 214 18.89 4,045 16,834 30.00’ 505,093 356 9.79 3,485 45,500 19.93 906,644 1902_ 206 18.74 3,852 16,697 29.23 488,130 327 9.59 3,141 44,728 18.76 839,126 1903_ 201 19.81 3,991 17,105 30.21 516,712 308 9.84 3,029 44,659 18.45 824,055 1904_ 197 22.36 4,415 17,420 29.21 508,841 299 10.74 3,207 43,629 16.32 712,178 1905.._ 193 20.90 4,044 17,572 27.44 482,272 302 10.37 3,127 43,669 15.15 661,571 1906_ 259 27.10 7,026 19,794 29.44 582,789 437 10.98 4,803 47,068 15.85 746,172 1907— 283 24.00 6,782 20,968 31.00 645,497 446 12.00 5,200 51,566 17.10 881,557 1908— 294 24.00 7,056 21,194 30.67 650,057 450 12.00 5,400 50,073 16.89 845,938 1909.._ 294 25.00 7,350 21,720 32.36 702,945 454 11.50 5,221 49,379 17.49 863,754 1910... 309 21 801 392 47,279 _ _ 1910**. 309 25.50 7,880 20,625 35.29 727,802 392 12.50 4,900 41,178 19.07 785,261 1911 — 312 28.00 8,736 20,823 39.97 832,209 388 13.40 5,199 39,679 20.54 815,184 1912— 312 28.00 8,736 20,699 39.39 815,414 3S0 12.60 4,788 37,260 21.20 790,064 1913— 312 30.10 9,391 20,497 45.02 922,783 372 14.90 5,543 36,030 26.36 949,645 1914— 309 35.10 10,846 20,737 53.94 1,118,487 365 17.30 6,314 35,855 31.13 1,116,333 1915— 315 36.50 11,498 21,262 55.33 1,176,338 369 17.00 6,273 37,067 33.38 1,237,376 1916— 321 34.00 10,914 22,108 53.92 1,191,955 375 16.80’ 6,300 39,812 33.53 1,334,928 1917— 315 39.00 12,285 22,894 59.63 1,365,251 364 19.40 7,062 41,689 35.88 1,497,621 1918_ 309 51.00 15,759 23,310 70.54 1,644,231 375 24.80 9,300 44,112 40.88 1,803,482 1919_ 315 69.00 21,735 23,475 78.20 1,835,770 379 31.90 12,090 45,085 44.22 1,993,442 1920_ S5J, 78.00 27,612 23,722 85.86 2,036,750 291 32.00 9,312 43,398 43.21 1,875,043 1920*** 35J f 23 722 291 43,398 1921... 361 5S.OO 20,938 23,594 64.22 1,515,249 285 24.20 6,897 41,993 31.36 1,316,727 1922___ 365 42.00 15,330 24,082 50.98 1,227,703 274 17.30 4,740 41,550 23.80 988,760 1923_ 365 39.00 14,235 24,429 50.83 1,241,673 274 17.10 4,685 41,923 25.67 1,076,254 * Census, June 1. ** Census, April 15. *** Census, January 1 Dollars per Mead Agricultural Graphics 43 cn _ u-> r- a~, — o-ioc^ b- tr b- c- c- rO (D Qocr'00 ooo — — — r: ~ ^ Si cCaDaD<3DcocDcOgD 0 t> — O o o o 1006 3 50 900 830 8 00 7 30 700 6.30 6 00 5.50 5.00 4 50 4.00 350 300 250 2.00 150 109 CHART 43.—SWINE: FARM PRICE, N. C. AND U. S Dollars per H»ad Dollars per Head Agricultural Graphics 47 ovei the 1867 figures (1,271,000 compared with 1 161 000) while in the United States as a whole there has been an increase of 157 percent (63,424,000 compared with 24, 694,000). Our farm price per head of swine (chart 43) has been uni¬ formly below the United States figure, but our gain in price comparing the decades 1913-22 and 1866-75, was 329 percent! while in the United States as a whole the gain in price was only 196 percent. This brings the North Carolina price very near to the United States level i. e., the North Carolina ten-year average farm price for swine (Jan. 1) 1914-23 was 98.7 percent of the United States average for the same ten years ($13.38 com¬ pared with $13.56). This, at any rate, is encouraging. III. Food Production 1. Food production as compared with population. The rela¬ tion of food production to population in North Carolina and in the United States cannot be adequately discussed without closer study than has yet been given this subject. However, compar- ing production and population in the several census years in¬ cluded in the fifty-seven years here considered, it may be said TABLE XIII—FOOD CHOPS AND POPULATION IN N. C. CENSUS YEARS 1870-1920 Year Population CORN WHEAT Production in Preceding Year Bus. Per In¬ habitant Bus. Production in Preceding Year Bus. Per In¬ habitant Bus. 1870 _ 1,071,361 18,454,000 17.2 2,S60,000 2.7 1880_ 1,399,750 28,020,000 20.0 3,397,000 2.4 1890._ _ 1,617,949 25,784,000 15.9 4,292,000 2.7 1900_ 1,893,810 34,819,000 18.4 4,342,000 2.3 1910_ 2,206,287 34,064,000 15.4 3,827,000 1.7 1920_ 2,559,123 40,998,000 16.0 4,745,000 1.9 OATS POTOTOES (All) Year Population Production in Per In- Production in Per In- Preceding Year habitant Preceding Year habitant Bus. Bus. Bus. Bus. 1870_ 1,071,361 3,220,000 3.0 3,811,000 3.6 1880_ 1,399,750 3,838,000 2.7 5,299,000 3.8 1890__ 1,617,949 4,513,000 2.7 6,864,000 4.2 1900_ 1,893,810 2,455,000 1.3 7,418,000 3.9 1910_ 2,206,287 2,783,000 1.3 10,865,000 4.9 1920_ 2,559,123 1,671,000 .7 12,163,000 4.8 48 Agricultural Graphics that North Carolina seems to be losing ground in per capita pro¬ duction of corn, wheat, and oats, while gaining in per capita pro¬ duction of potatoes and sweet potatoes. In the United States as a whole, on the contrary, there would seem to be an increasing per capita production of wheat and oats, while the production of corn per capita in census years has varied so much as to obscure the trend; and no plainly marked trend is observable in per capita production of potatoes and sweet potatoes. The United States, of course, is a surplus-producing wheat country, but in North Carolina it may be noted that per capita production of wheat is far below the average per capita consumption of wheat in this state—even though (because of our use of cornmeal) our esti¬ mated requirements of wheat per person is small as compared with the requirements in many other states. Agricultural Graphics 49 TABLE XIV—FOOD ANIMALS AND POPULATION IN N. C. CENSUS YEARS 1870-1920 Year Population MILCH COWS OTHER CATTLE SWINE Total Number Per Inhab¬ itant Total Number Per Inhab¬ itant Total Number Per Inhab¬ itant 1S70_ 1880_ 1890 _ 1900_ 1910_ 1920__ 1,071,361 1,399,750 1,617,949 1,893,810 2,206,287 2,559,123 197,000 232,000 223,000 233,000 ! 309,000 354,000 0.18 .17 .14 .12 .14 .14 ! 324,000 425,000 407,000 391,000 392,000 291,000 0.30 .30 .25 .21 .18 .11 1,075,000 1,454,000 1,251,000 1,300,000 1,228,000 1,271,000 1.00 1.04 .77 .69 .56 .56 £ £0 8 s O CT5 c n 50 Agricultural Graphics Similar and even more marked diminution is found in food animals as compared with population in North Carolina. These facts are exhibited in Tables XIII and XIV and in charts 44 and 45. Careful investigation of this whole subject would be of inter¬ est in connection with the effort to establish ourselves more se¬ curely on a self-feeding basis. 2. General considerations. In considering our standing in livestock, we would do well to take a look at some of the states whose livestock levels are high. (See University News Letter, Vol. VIII, No. 29.) Iowa stands first in this respect, and Iowa also stands first in farm wealth produced per farm worker and per country dweller and in the surplus of food and feed supplies produced ( University News Letter, Vol. VIII, Nos. 25, 38, and 47). Other states having high livestock levels stand sim¬ ilarly much higher than North Carolina in all these respects. These are all matters in which we rank comparatively low, and in which we can beyond question improve our status by paying to our farm livestock situation the attention it urgently de¬ mands. We need to give this matter such serious thought as will lead us to cease to concentrate entirely upon cash crops. These, though they bring high per-acre crop values, leave us with farm wealth amounting in the latest census year to some $684 per country dweller, as compared with $8,113 in Iowa and $1,836 in the United States at large. Improvement in our tenancy situation will bring improvement in our livestock situation, and vice versa. This is a fact brought out plainly in the findings of the North Carolina Club at the Uni¬ versity in its recent exploration of the whole subject of tenancy. These findings will repay study; they have been published in the Club Year-Book for 1921-22, on Farm and Home Ownership. It cannot be denied that there has been vast prosperity for the few under our prevailing farm system. But what of the many? Have they prospered in due proportion? Cooperative marketing is calculated to play a big part in pre¬ serving for the many some abiding financial fruits of their labor. But cooperative marketing of cash crops alone cannot establish a high standard of living in our country regions. Food and feed crops, home-raised bread and meat, are essentials if we are Agricultural Graphics 51 to retain any considerable proportion of the wealth we produce. And these are generally characteristic of a home-owning civi¬ lization, towards which we must direct our efforts. The recent appointment of a commission to study the matter of state-aid to assist farmers in owning their own homes is a step in the right direction. Such study must not be allowed to languish. It must be pushed forward until logical conclusions are reached, and then acted upon with the promptitude and firmness that have characterized much of our state legislation in recent years. But the main portion of our necessary readjustments must come from the farmers themselves. Their prosperity in the main is in their own hands if they will read aright the lessons taught by experience in this state and the South generally. The state institutions of learning are eager to help them with these lessons, which are not easy to digest without the aid of trained minds. But surely we may end on a note of optimism, since, beyond ques¬ tion, the opportunity for training is more and more available and is more and more welcomed and embraced by our rising generation. EXTENSION LEAFLETS Yol. I, No. Vol. I, No. Vol. I, No. Vol. I. No. Vol. II, No. Vol. II, No. Vol. II, No. Vol. II, No. Vol. II, No. Vol. Ill, No. 10. Selections for Speaking in the Public Schools.—I: Lee, Lincoln and Washington Anniversaries. Price 10c. 12. American Ideals in American Literature—A Syllabus. Price 10c. 1-4, National Ideals in British and American Literature. Prico 50c 16. The Community Pageant. An Agency for the Promotion of Democracy. Price 10c. 4. The American University and the New Nationalism. Free. 5. A Syllabus of Comparative Government and National Ideals. Price 25c. 0. Reconstruction and Citizenship. Free. 7. Studies in the Social and Industrial Condition of Women as Affected by the War. Price 10c. 9. Sanitation in the South. Price 25c. 2. Country Home Comforts and Conveniences Series. Parts I and II. Free. Vol. Ill, No. 4. Physical Education. Free. Vol. Ill, No. 7. Our Heritage. A Study through Literature of the American Tradition. For Women’s Clubs. Price 35c. Vol. Ill, No. 8. The Consolidation of Rural Schools. Price 25c. Vol. Ill, Nos. 9 & 10. Development of Farm Water Power, Country nome Com¬ forts and Conveniences. Series No. I, Part III. Free. Vol. IV, No. 1 . Constructive Ventures in Government: A Manual of Discussion and Study of Woman’s New Part in the Newer Ideals of Citizenship. For Women’s Clubs. Price 50c. Vol. IV, No. 2. Construction of Farm Telephone Lines. Country Home Com¬ forts and Conveniences. Series No. I, Part IV. Free. Vol. IV, No. 5. Community and Government. A Manual of Discussion and Study of the Newer Ideals of Citizenship. Price 50c. Vol. IV, No. 6. Music in the Public Schools. Free. Vol. IV, No. 7. A Study Course in Modern Drama. For Women’s Clubs. Price 50c. Vol. IV, No. 8. Community Music Methods and Materials. Free. Vol. IV, No. 9. High School Athletic Contests. Free. Vol. IV, No. 10. A Study Course in American Literature. For Women’s Clubs. Price 50c. MONEY ORDER, CHECK OR STAMPS ACCEPTED ADDRESS: UNIVERSITY EXTENSION DIVISION, Chapel Hill, N. C. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA EXTENSION BULLETIN Published twice a month, September, October, November, December, and once a month, January, February, March, April, May, June. Succeeding: and combining University of North Carolina Exten¬ sion Leaflets, Volumes I-IV, and The University of North Carolina Record, Extension Series 1-41.